GOUSIYA FIROZ KHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging the Order of Detention dtd. 6/9/2022 passed by Commissioner of Police, Pune City (Respondent No.1) under Sec. 3(2) of 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 (for short 'M.PD.A. Act '), directing that Mr. Firoz @ Babali Makbul Khan be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Petitioner is wife of the said detenu. Alongwith Order of Detention the detenu was also served with the grounds of Detention and the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority for passing Impugned Order of Detention.

(2.) Learned Advocate Ms. Misbaah Solkar appearing for Petitioner submitted that, the Order of Detention is based on C.R. No.156 of 2022 registered with Khadak Police Station for offence under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC ') and Sec. 4(25) of the Arms Act and Sec. 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and C.R. No.116 of 2022 registered with Samarth Police Station for offence under Ss. 326, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Detaining Authority has also relied upon statement of witnesses A and B recorded in camera for issuing the impugned Order of Detention. It is submitted that, the detenu was arrested in connection with C.R. No.156 of 2022 on 31/5/2022 and in C.R. No.116 of 2022 on 7/7/2022.

(3.) Learned APP submitted that the Detaining Authority was aware that the detenu was in custody on the date of issuing Order of Detention. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the detenu had applied for bail in C.R. No.116 of 2022 and the application for bail was pending before the Court. In paragraph No.8 of grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has stated that the application for bail of detenu is pending for decision. The detenu may be granted bail under the ordinary law of the land as the offence is not compulsorily punishable with death sentence. In view of his activities the Detaining Authority is satisfied that after availing bail facility and becoming a free person the detenu is likely to revert to similar activities. It is submitted that the question of dealing with submission advanced by the learned Advocate for Petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply did not arise since the aforesaid ground is not pleaded in the Petition. Learned APP adverted to ground (F) urged by Petitioner in the Petition wherein it has been urged that, despite the Sponsoring Authority knowing that, the detenu was in judicial custody in C.R. No.116 of 2022 registered with Samarth Police Station, the Sponsoring Authority moved a proposal before the Detaining Authority during the pendency of the bail application of the detenu only to ensure that the detenu continues to be behind bars, if the Court grants bail to the detenu and therefore, Detention Order smacks of malafide rendering it to quash and set aside. It is submitted that in the context of the ground urged by Petitioner the Detaining Authority in the affidavit-in-reply has stated that the said ground pertains to Sponsoring Authority and therefore, the affidavit of Sponsoring Authority may be perused. Learned APP then pointed out the reply filed by the Sponsoring Authority and submitted that Petitioner 's contention urged in the ground 6-(F) has been dealt with in the said affidavit-in-reply by stating that it is denied that Sponsoring Authority has moved the proposal before Detaining Authority during the pendency of bail application of detenu, only to ensure that, he continues to remain behind the bars. It is also denied that the Order of Detention smacks of malafide. It was also stated that during the course of investigation the detenu was arrested on 7/7/2022. The bail application preferred by detenu was pending on the day of issuance of Order of Detention. Hence, there is no substance in the say of Petitioner.