RUPESH RAM THAKUR Vs. S CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) The petitioner/detenu challenges the order of detention dated 25-2-2004 issued under Section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra prevention of Dangerous Activities of slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and dangerous Persons Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as "the MPDA Act". The petitioner, a resident of Reti Bunder, Mumbra, District thane, and presently lodged at Yerawada central Prison, Pune, has been detained since 25-2-2004 pursuant to the said order passed under the MPDA Act. The said order is stated to have been issued with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds in support of the detention order disclose that a complaint being C. R. No. I-191/2003 under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered at Mumbra Police Station on 14- 7-2003 against the petitioner. As the petitioner was absconding, he could be arrested only on 22-9-2003, whereupon he was remanded to magisterial custody. However, he was released on bail on 23-9-2003. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner on 7-11-2003. Another complaint being C. R. No. I-245/2003 under Sections 337, 506 (II) , 323, 504, 506 an d 427 of the Indian penal Code came to be registered at the Mumbra police Station against the petitioner consequent to which he was arrested and released on bail on 23-9-2003. Charge-sheet in that regard, on conclusion of the investigation, came to be filed on 5-11-2003. Besides the said two cognizable offences, an anonymous application dated 14- 11-2003 was received on 26-11-2003 by the police purportedly from a resident of Gautam nagar, Reti Bunder, Mumbra, alleging threats at the point of knife to the shopkeepers in the area in order to enable the petitioner to take materials free of charge and posing as a "dada" of the area by the petitioner. Two in-camera statements were recorded on 4-12-2003 and 5-12-2003 - the first of an autorickshaw driver and the second of a grocery shop owner. In both the statements, the deponents accused the petitioner of a criminal character with narration of criminal activities by him in the area. On 27-12-2003, at around 12:30 hours, the PSO, mumbra police station received an anonymous telephonic call alleging that the petitioner along with three associates armed with knife, iron rod, etc. , were threatening the shopkeepers and the vegetable vendors and were extorting money from them and there was chaos in the locality. On verification, the police found that the shops in the locality were closed, vegetables, groceries and other articles were scattered in the area and the atmosphere was tense and nobody was prepared to elucidate the truth to the police and the petitioner and his associates were not traceable. The sponsoring authority thereafter proposed clamping of detention order upon the petitioner and the proposal in that regard was moved on 9-1-2004, after being duly processed through all the channels, the impugned order came to be passed on 25-2-2004 and was served on the petitioner on the very day.

(3.) The challenge to the impugned order is two-fold. Though the petitioner has enumerated various grounds of challenge to the impugned order in the petition, the learned advocate for the petitioner has restricted the challenge to only two grounds, one relating to absence of application of mind by the authority in as much as that the incidents narrated as being the justification for issuance of the detention order do not disclose activities causing disturbance of public order but the same may, at the most, reveal law and order problem, and secondly, that there was inordinate delay in sponsoring and issuing the order of detention from the date of the incidents which are the basis for clamping the detention order and there is no explanation for such delay. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner's acts disclose the activities of terrorising nature with the intention to gain pecuniary benefits resulting in disturbance of the public order and that there is no delay in clamping the detention order nor in sponsoring the said order. Considering the complaints registered in September, the investigation which had followed and the continued criminal activities on the part of the petitioner revealed from the anonymous application, the in-camera statements and the anonymous telephone call justify the clamping of detention order and taking into consideration all these activities which have been the basis for the detention of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the live link had snapped.