BALAJI HANUMANT PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the detention order dtd. 10/3/2025 bearing No.2025/DCB-2/RR-1196 (1)/25 passed by the District Magistrate, Solapur, District Solapur under Sec. 3 (1) of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short "MPDA Act"). The Superintendent of Police, Solapur submitted a proposal on 4/2/2025 for detention of the detenu under the MPDA Act to the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority satisfied himself that the petitioner is a dangerous person within the meaning of Sec. 2 (b-1) of the MPDA Act. Further, the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and, therefore, he found it necessary to detain the detenu under the MPDA Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in a similar manner in future. The Detaining Authority was satisfied from the materials on record, which include in-camera statements of witnesses on which reliance is placed, that such an order is necessary.

(2.) We may refer to a few facts in the context of submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the detention order be quashed on the ground of unexplained delay. Learned Counsel submitted that there was a partition suit pending between the family and relatives of the petitioner. Four offences, out of eight relied upon, were registered by the relatives of the petitioner which, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was the fall out of the partition suit and had nothing to do with the petitioner's activities as a dangerous person.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that an F.I.R came to be registered against the petitioner on 11/9/2024 by the first informant in respect of an incident which took place on 9/9/2024. According to the first informant, the petitioner forcibly removed a sum of Rs.5,000.00 from the pocket of the first informant. The petitioner abused the first informant and led away from the spot on the motorcycle belonging to the first informant. Thereafter, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 23/9/2024 in respect of the aforesaid F.I.R lodged on 11/9/2024. The following conditions were imposed;