CHETNA CHANDRAKANT TODANKAR Vs. A N ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Perused the records. The petitioner challenges the order of detention passed under the maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'mpda Act", dated 19th August, 2004 against the husband of the petitioner, viz. Chandrakant Prabhakar todankar, on four grounds.

(2.) The materials on record disclose that the C. R. No. 136 of 2004 came to be registered against the detenu at Dadar Police station on 22nd June, 2004 under Sections 387,323, 506 (ii) read with 34 of Indian Penal code, read with Sections 3 and 25 of Arms act, pursuant to the complaint lodged by one shri. Ramkrishna Genu More. The detenu applied for anticipatory bail before the sessions Court on 9th July, 2004 which came to be rejected on 12th July, 2004. The detenu was arrested on 13th July, 2004. He was remanded to the custody from time to time till 23rd July, 2004. He was released on bail on 23rd July, 2004, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, on execution of the bond in the sum of Rs. 7,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount and on the condition that he should report at Dadar Police station daily between 7. 00 p. m. to 9. 00 p. m. until further order. The bail facility was availed by the detenu from 26th July, 2004. Meanwhile, in-camera statement of the witness "a" came to be recorded on 25th June, 2004, and another in-camera statement of the witness "b" came to be recorded on 28th June, 2004. The sponsoring authority proposed detention under the provisions of MPDA Act against the detenu on 23rd July, 2004, and ultimately the order of detention came to be passed on 19th August, 2004. The same was served upon the detenu on 20th August, 2004.

(3.) The first ground of challenge to the impugned order of detention is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for the purpose of issuance of order of detention against the detenu is being vitiated since the detaining authority failed to take into consideration the fact that the detenu though was released on bail, the same was subject to his daily attendantce at Dadar Police Station between 7. 00 p. m. to 9. 00 p. m. , and there was no complaint of any violation of the terms of the bail order nor the records disclose any attempt on the part of the investigating agency to seek cancellation of the bail, and that therefore, there was no case for clamping detention order against the detenu and in that regard, the detaining authority even failed to take note of the settled law that the detention is not substitute for punishment. Reliance is placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Yadav Vs. District magistrate, Etah and Ors. , reported in AIR 1986 sc 315. The contention of the petitioner in that regard is sought to be countered on behalf of the respondents while drawing attention to the affidavit-in-reply by the detaining authority wherein it has been stated that imposing condition of daily reporting at the police station did not sufficiently prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, and taking into consideration the overall materials placed before the detaining authority including the order regarding grant of conditional bail and in-camera statements of the witnesses, the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that the order of detention was the only remedy to curb prejudicial activities of the detenu.