ANIKET DILIP KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dtd. 31/03/2022 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City under Sec. 3 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 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act"), of preventive detention of the petitioner, since 31/03/2022. The petitioner further impugns order dtd. 05/05/2022 passed by the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra, confirming the detention of the petitioner under order dtd. 31/03/2022.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the order of detention dtd. 31/03/2022 is essentially based upon two offences alleged against him the first being Crime No.662/2021 alleged to have been committed by the petitioner at Hudkeshwar on 04/10/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 252, 294, 506, 323 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as "the first offence") and the second offence, which is alleged to have been taken place at Sakkardara in Crime No.530/2021 on 05/10/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 386, 143, 147, 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as "the second offence"). It is contended by the petitioner that on the first offence, Criminal Case No.1056/2022 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagpur on 02/03/2022, wherein the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the order of Magistrate dtd. 11/10/2021. On the second offence, Criminal Case No.367/2022 was filed against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur on 08/01/2022, wherein the petitioner was enlarged on bail by order dtd. 07/10/2021 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (M.V. Court) Nagpur. According to the record of the Detaining Authority, both these cases were pending before the concerned Magistrate as on the date of passing of the impugned order.