SHUBHANGI BALKRISHNA LONARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. This Petition has been filed by the mother of the Detenu namely Ashwin @ Barkya Balkrushna Lonare, against whom the Order of Detention has been issued by the Respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The Petitioner is challenging the Order of Detention dtd. 11/6/2024, issued against her son namely Ashwin @ Barkya Balkrushna Lonare (Detenu), by the Respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Police, Pune City, in exercise of his powers 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 Black-Marketing Of Essential Commodities Act, 1981. ("the MPDA Act"). According to the Petitioner, the Detenu has been detained in Chandrapur Prison by the Order of Committal dtd. 11/6/2024 which is issued pursuant to the Order of Detention, by the Respondent No.2.

(2.) It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the Order of Detention has been issued by the Detaining Authority merely on two grounds : (i) An offence registered against the Detenu at Warje Malwadi Police Station on 15/4/2024 vide C.R. No.161/2024 and (ii) The Two in-camera statements of Witness 'A' and 'B'. Being aggrieved with the said Order of Detention, which is in violation of fundamental rights of the Detenu, guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the said Order of Detention.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Joshi, appearing for the Petitioner, while making his submissions has submitted that the incident on the basis of which the FIR has been registered as well as the incident which have been stated in the in-camera statement of the witnesses, do not refer that the acts and conduct attributed to the Detenu caused breach of peace and public order or it has caused disturbance to the even tempo of public life. The acts and conduct attributed to the Petitioner were mostly individualistic and there was no element of disturbance to public order involved in the incident. The said incident was capable of being taken care by the general law, therefore, the Order of Detention was not at all necessary.