NAKSHATRAM KANAKRAJ NADAR Vs. COMMISSIOER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, Kanakraj Pal Nadar, who was detained under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as "the MPDA Act"), challenging the order of detention dated 26th September 2003 issued by the commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay under Section 3 (1) of the said Act.

(2.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order the detenu was detained on 30th September 2003. In the grounds of detention two incidents in which the detenu was involved have been mentioned. The first incident was of 31st May 2003 in respect of which the crime was registered for offences under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC read with sections 4, 25 (l-b) (a) and 35 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act at Nehru Nagar police Station under C. R. No. 129/03. That was a case where robbery was committed on Thane-Mumbai Express highway by the accused after stopping the vehicles. The second incident is dated 19th June 2003 in which the detenu along with his associates was arrested when the accused were about to commit dacoity. The said offence was registered under C. R. No. 141/03 at Nehru Nagar Police station. While the associates of the detenu were found in possession of a toy pistol and chopper, the detenu was found in possession of chilly powder along with gold bar of 541. 300 gms. valued at Rs. l,87,118/- and other articles. After the detenu and his associates were arrested on 19th June 2003 identification parade of the accused was held by the Special Executive Magistrate at thane Central Prison on 15th July 2003 when the complainant and witness Bharat Shah identified the deten. and his associates and one Pandi Kandaswami tewar. All the associates were attributed different roles by the complainant and the witnesses. In the earlier incident of 31st May 2603 the detenu was holding sickle in his hand which has been recovered at his instance. After arrest of the detenu and others the detenu was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, vikhroli on 20th June 2003 and remanded to police custody till 3rd July 2003. On 3rd July 2003 the detenu applied for bail which was kept for hearing on the following day on which date his application for bail was rejected and the detenu was remanded to judicial custody. There after no application for bail seems to have been filed on behalf of the detenu. The Detaining authority having subjectively satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that under the normal law of the land in due course he might be granted bail in which case he was likely to resort to similar activities which were prejudicial to maintenance of public order in future, the order of detention was issued against him. The said order of detention is under challenge in this petition filed by the wife of the detenu.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner challenged the order of detention mainly on two grounds. He firstly contended that the detenu was not a dangerous person as per the definition of a dangerous person given in section 2 (b-l) of the MPDA Act. Secondly he contended that the detenu is not a habitual offender and, therefore, also the provisions of the MPDA Act were not applicable. He also contended that since the detenu was in custody there was no necessity for issuing the order of detention.