SACHIN GAJANANRAO TELGOTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Shri U.J.Deshpande for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.S.Doifode for respondents/State. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

(2.) On 8/4/2022, Police Inspector of Akot City Police Station submitted a proposal to respondent No.2 - the Collector and District Magistrate, Akola, contending that the petitioner/detenu is a dangerous person for the society. It is alleged that the detenu along with his associates was roaming around the area within the jurisdiction of Akot Police Station and habitually committed serious offences like assaults, extortions, robberies, lands/property grabbing armed with deadly weapon like knife. It is further alleged that the activities of the petitioner/detenu caused alarm and insecurity amonst the general public and, therefore, preventive proceedings under Sec. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also initiated against the petitioner/detenu. It is alleged that as the law of the land is found to be insufficient and ineffective to deter the petitioner/detenu from indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, preventive proceedings under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 ( "the MPD Act ") were taken after recording two in-camera statements of witnesses. The Authority stated that the petitioner/ detenu is a bootlegger and his acts caused danger to the society.

(3.) After receiving the proposal along with necessary documents, and after considering the same, on 13/4/2022 respondent No.2 passed order of detention under Sec. 3(1) and 3(2) of the MPD Act and the petitioner/detenu was detained. Respondent No.2 assigned various grounds of detention mentioning that though a prevention action was taken against the petitioner/detenu, his activities are continue, and, therefore, his detention is required in view of the provisions of the said Act. The order of detention was sent to respondent No.1 for its approval.