KIRAN RAMJAN MACHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Detention Order dtd. 5/9/2023, issued by Respondent No.2 -The Commissioner of Police, Pimpari-Chinchwad, Pune, 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 BlackMarketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short 'the MPDA Act'). 1.1) Along with the said Detention Order dtd. 5/9/2023, the Committal Order of even date and Grounds of Detention were served upon the Petitioner and Petitioner was directed to be detained at Yerwada Central Prison, Yerwada, Pune. The Detention Order has been issued with a view to prevent the Petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as the Petitioner has been involved in bootlegging activities.

(2.) Heard Mr. Suryavanshi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused entire record and all the Affidavits-in-reply filed by the Respondents.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the Detention Order is assailed on several grounds, however, he is relying on the sole ground that, there is an inordinate delay in issuing the Detention Order. Explaining the same, it is submitted that, after registration of the subject crimes, there is more than 03 months delay in recording the in-camera statements of witnesses. Further, there is delay of 08 to 20 days in verification of said statements. The proposal for Detention Order was processed slowly and ultimately, the Detention Order was passed on 5/9/2023, which includes 48 days delay on the part of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime). Thus, there is total 07 months and 08 days delay in passing the Detention Order. Said delay is not satisfactorily explained. This all indicate that, there was no need of passing the Detention Order. Therefore, the Detention Order is illegal and liable to be quashed. To support the submissions, the learned Advocate has relied on following decisions.