BHUPENDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 03/5/2013 passed by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short, "the Act"), whereby the petitioner has been directed to be detained for a period of two years. In this case, on the basis of a proposal sent by the Sponsoring Authority, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order on 03/5/2013 and on the same day the grounds in support of the order of detention were communicated to the petitioner in compliance with Section 8 of the Act. From the perusal of the grounds, it would appear that apart from the past history as set out in paragraph 4 of the grounds (which, according to the Detaining Authority, have not been considered while issuing the order), two instances dated 24/10/2012 and 25/10/2012 have been considered and relied upon. The Detaining Authority has also taken into consideration the statements of two witnesses recorded in camera in reaching the subjective satisfaction for passing the order.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned order and the record.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be said to be a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Section 2(b1) of the Act. He submitted that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority in that regard is misplaced. He also submitted that the nature of the allegations in respect of two incidents dated 24/10/2012 and 25/10/2012 cannot be said to involve threat to public order. It is submitted that the statements of two witnesses recorded in camera are also vague as they lack in material particular such as day, date and time of the alleged incidents involving the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order would be vitiated on account of non consideration of the applications and the orders by which the petitioner was released on bail in respect of two incidents relied upon. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in this regard on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2012 1 SCC(Cri) 693 and on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Niyazuddin @ Sonu Sirajuddin Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, 2013 AllMR(Cri) 3870. He, therefore, urged that the petition be allowed.