CHANDABAI DADARAO KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Pankaj Navlani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.R. Rode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner - Sau. Chandabai w/o Dadarao Kale, challenges the preventive detention of her son Dashrath s/o Dadarao Kale, aged about 45 years by Respondent No. 3 - Commissioner of Police, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Act). It is not in dispute that the said order has been duly approved by the State Government. The detention is for a period of one year. The approval order of the State Government under Sec. 3(3) is dated 09.11.2015. We need not go into other details of the matter as Shri Navlani, learned counsel has pointed out that four in-camera statements looked into by Respondent No. 3 do not support the subjective satisfaction that the witnesses are not ready and willing to come forward to depose. The order of Respondent No. 3 dated 07.11.2015 does not contain any application of mind in this respect.

(3.) The offences looked into are stale and, therefore, lack live link with the order of detention. Inviting attention to Crime No. 6026 of 2015, he submits that it is under Sec. 65(E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and still under investigation. Only Indian Penal Code offence in 2015 is vide Crime No. 280 of 2005 under Sections 143, 147, 506(b) on 20.07.2015 and it is still pending. The other offences are all old. The instance of non-cognisable cases are all pertaining to the year 2014. The preventive actions taken are of the year 2012 or of the year 2014. Apart from one action each in that year, on 29.06.2015, preventive action under Sec. 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, has been taken and bond has been obtained on 08.07.2015. Two crime Nos. 6042 of 2015 and 6053 of 2015 are registered. In relation to Crime No. 6042 of 2015, the police records age of Dashrath to be 27 years. Spot of raid is recorded as near Government dispensary while in Crime register, search of residential house has been mentioned. The learned counsel submits that thus, there is inconsistent material on record and as the non application of mind is apparent, the order of detention is unsustainable. He is relying upon the judgment dated 07.03.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 528 of 2015 (Shahjahan w/o Kalimkhan Samshadkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.) and the judgment dated 29.02.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 660 of 2015 (Ravindrasing @ Mullasing s/o Sarwansing Gour Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur (City), Nagpur).