PRAMOD RAJENDRA SAHANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the impugned order of detention dtd. 24/9/2023, issued by Respondent no.2 and approved by Respondent no.l vide order dtd. 5/10/2023. The offence and two confidential statements that are considered for passing the detention order are herein below: Crime No. 142/23, under Ss. 392, 504, 506, 34 of IPC, Police Station, Ramtek and the statements A and B. In the said offence, the petitioner and his accomplice snatched Rs.2000.00 and Rs.5000.00 from the complainant and his fiance respectively, along with a mobile phone handset of Realme company valued Rs.4000.00. Similarly, the perusal of confidential statements show that the acts involved are of extortion of money from the passers-by using abusive language.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Saurabh Shrivastava, submits that the respondents failed to consider the definition of "Public Order" as explained in the matter of Ram Manohar Lohiya vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1996 SC 740 by the Apex Court. That the ambit of public order is to embrace more of the community than law and order. The other factors put forward by the learned counsel of the petitioner are that he was enlarged on bail in the previous criminal cases and never jumped any of the bail conditions, that the Respondents failed to appreciate that the confidential witnesses had just given their statement and furnished no evidence to substantiate it, and neither tried to find out whether there is some medical report or other accompanying proof to pass the impugned order.