MUKESH JAIDEOPRASAD SHAHU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Dhengale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Thakare, learned APP for the respondents, for sometime.

(2.) Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order of preventive detention passed on 30.04.2016. The contention is, it lacks live link. A perusal of chart showing offences looked into reveal commission of four offences in the month of October 2015 and one preventive action under Section 107, 116(3) of Criminal Procedure Code in July 2015. Apart from that there are two in- camera statements and witness 'A' speaks about an event which has taken place in the month of January 2016 while witness 'B' speaks about an event which has taken place in the month of February 2016. It is not in dispute that in relation to crimes committed allegedly in October 2015, the petitioner was granted bail in November 2015.

(3.) The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Mubarak Mohammad Umar vs. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Department, reported at 2002 (Supp.1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 128 and in the case of Yuvraj Ramchandra Pawar vs. Ramaswami N. (Dr.) & Ors., reported at 2015 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 43, to urge that in the absence of live link, the impugned order is unsustainable. He further submits that the petitioner is a R.T.I. activist and was required to approach this Court on a number of occasions to complain about Sales Tax evasion and because of that litigation, he has been falsely implicated on account of influence of the person whose Sales tax evasion was unearth. It is further contended that he was also given police protection and as such the contention that he has indulged in all these offence is incorrect.