OMKAR UMAKANT KASBE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed for the following relief :-

(2.) The petitioner claims to be 21 year old student. He is resident of Latur. He claims to have secured distinction in 12th Standard and secured admission for Diploma in Pharmacy. He, however, could not complete the course since the respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Latur detained him for a period of 12 months vide order dtd. 27/10/2023, passed in exercise of powers under Sec. 3(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 (MPDA Act for short). The order of detention has been approved by the Department of Home, Government of Maharashtra. The action of detention has been taken considering the petitioner to be a 'dangerous person' and his activities were likely to disturb public peace.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner took us through the order of detention impugned in this petition. According to him, a crime vide C.R. No.389/2023, registered for offence punishable under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and two in-camera statements have only been relied upon to pass the order of detention. The crimes registered prior thereto have only been referred as a history of criminal activities. Most of the crimes thereof do not get covered by the definition of 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Sec. 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act. He would further submit that, the in-camera statements were as vague as could be. Those were recorded way back in June and July 2023. According to him, there was a gross delay in passing of the order of detention and the proposal moved by the sponsoring authority in that regard. According to the learned Advocate, the petitioner has been on bail in the crime relied on for passing the impugned order. The First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered in relation to the said crime was against unknown person. The victim, on the following day, changed his version. In short, according to the learned Advocate, the material relied on was not sufficient to reach to a subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority for passing of the impugned order. According to him, the petitioner has been languishing in jail for about 8 months in just 21 years of age. The learned Advocate relied on the following set of authorities :