SUCHITA RAHUL HARPALE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the wife of the detenu challenging the detention order bearing no. CRIME PCB/DET/HADAPSAR/ HARPALE/653/2024, dtd. 19/8/2024. Vide the impugned order, the Petitioner's husband was directed to be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981. On the same date, by a separate committal order, the Petitioner's husband was directed to be detained in the Akola Central Prison. Alongwith the detention order and the committal order, the Petitioner's husband was served with the grounds of detention dtd. 19/8/2024.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Ms. Tripathi for the Petitioner-the wife of the detenu and learned APP Shri Gavand for the Respondent-State.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied only on one ground to challenge the said order of the detention. Her only contention is that the detaining authority has stated in paragraph no. 4 that he had considered only one offence mentioned below paragraph no. 5.1 and two in-camera statements mentioned in paragraph nos. 6.1 and 6.2 to issue the detention order. However, paragraph nos. 3.1 and 3.2 gives his past history. This clearly means that he was not relying on that history to pass the detention order, but in paragraph no. 8, he has again differed from his statement and has stated that he had mentioned the offences and preventive action, in paragraph nos. 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the grounds of detention to show that the detenu was a habitual criminal involved in continuous criminal activities. It is submitted that the contradictory stand taken by the detaining authority shows non application of mind. It also deprived the Petitioner's husband from making an effective representation at the earliest. Based on this contradictory stand, the subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority in passing the detention order is vitiated.