JOGINDERSINGH RANJITSINGH CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to challenge the order of preventive detention dtd. 27/5/2024 issued by Respondent No.2 in exercise of powers under Sec. 3(1) and (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 (Hereinafter referred to as "MPDA" for the purpose of brevity). The said order is approved vide order dtd. 5/6/2024 passed by Respondent No.1 under Sec. 3(3), which is also impugned in the petition. The petitioner has been placed under preventive detention on the ground that he is a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Sec. 2(b-1) of MPDA. The grounds of detention dtd. 27/5/2024 have been communicated to the petitioner on the date of his detention. The detaining authority has referred to 15 offences registered against the petitioner from 11/8/2022 till 5/5/2024. Apart from this, one externment proceeding under Sec. 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act is also referred to. As per the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has taken into consideration last two offences registered against the petitioner, viz :- (I) F.I.R. No.82/2024 dtd. 9/2/2024, for the offences punishable under Ss. 353, 332, 212, 189, 504 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4/25 of the Arms Act and Sec. 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act and (ii) F.I.R. No.250/2024 dtd. 5/5/2024 for the offences punishable under Sec. 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Sec. 4/25 of the Arms Act. It is stated that during the course of confidential enquiry, the Police Inspector, Police Station, Vasmat City has recorded in-camera statements of two witnesses, who have agreed for recording their statements on condition of anonymity.

(2.) The Advisory Board has expressed opinion after considering the representation of the petitioner that there are sufficient grounds for continuing preventive detention of the petitioner.

(3.) Shri Shaikh Faiyazuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two offences, which are stated to be taken into consideration by the detaining authority are not relating to breach of public order. He states that at the best the said offences can be said to be relating to law and order and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that public order has been adversely affected due to the same. He points out that with respect to the offence registered vide F.I.R. No.250/2024, the Police has merely issued a notice under Sec. 41A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has not arrested him. He contends that the Police Authority itself has not considered the said offence to be a serious offence. With respect to the second offence registered vide F.I.R. No.82/2024, he states that he was arrested in relation to the said offence on 5/5/2024 and subsequently released on bail on 10/5/2024. He contends that taking the averments in the said F.I.R. on its face value at best Sec. 4/25 of the Arms Act and Sec. 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act can be attributed to him. The other Sec. are not attributable to him. He criticizes the order of preventive detention on the ground that for alleged breach of the externment order passed under Sec. 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, prosecution under Sec. 142 of the said Act is already initiated against him. He would go on to submit that when recourse can be and in fact has been taken to ordinary law in order to meet the situation, Respondent No.2 could not resort to shortcut method by passing order of prevention detention. With respect to the offence under Arms Act, he states that the detention order does not refer to any notification under the said Act and as such, the offence under the said Act is not made out. Apart from this, he states that the order refers to 15 offences in all and although it is stated that only the aforesaid two offences have been taken into consideration, in fact all 15 offences have been considered by the detaining authority. He states that since stale offences have been taken into consideration. The order stands vitiated on the ground that irrelevant considerations have weighed with detaining authority while passing the impugned order of preventive detention.