UTTAM CHINTAMAN KHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel, Ms. Shobha Gopal for the Petitioner-detenue and Mr. R. L. Patil A. G. P. for the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is the detenue, has been detained under the order dt. 19th October, 1996, issued by the Commissioner of Police Brihan-Mumbai, in exercise of his powers under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. THE order states that the Commissioner of Police Brihan-Mumbai was satisfied with respect to the detenue Uttam Chintaman Khare alias Balya alias Pahelwan, resident of Ramabai Colony, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai, that with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing him to be detained under the National Security Act, 1980. THE said order dt. 19th October, 1996, was confirmed by the State Government in exercise of its power under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the National Security Act, on 20th December, 1996, whereunder the period of detention is stipulated to be one year from the date of detention. In this Petition filed through the Jail, the Petitioner has challenged the said orders. Few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised before us may be stated.

(3.) APART from the above specific incident of 11th August, 1996, wherein the detenue has been implicated by two eye witnesses viz; Dhanu Yadav and Chintaman Yadav, there are other instances where number of persons in the localities of the D. N. Road, Mahatma Phule Market and the areas adjoining thereto, had suffered at the hands of detenue and his associates. But, such persons dared not speak openly against them, since they were afraid of the detenue and his associates. As a result of this, the atmosphere in the said localities and the areas adjoining thereto falling in the jurisdiction of Azad Maidan Police Station, was surcharged with tension. The grounds of detention further disclose that it was only on assurance that such persons would not be called upon to give evidence against the detenue openly in the Court and their names and identity would be kept secret, that these victims have vividly described the atrocities committed by the detenue and his associates. The grounds of detention give, in brief, the gist of the statements recorded in-camera. The statement of witness "a" has been recorded on 9th September, 1996, implicating the detenue and his two associates namely Amarsingh and Bhurya as weapon wielding goondas from the locality, who mostly indulge in robbing the residents and passer-by and the said witness had witnessed some of the incidents personally, that the detenue and his associates were indulging in looting people visiting chowpatty. It was a fact within the knowledge of witness "a". Since, however, the detenue and his associates are usually armed with deadly weapons, witness "a" was scared of him and did not dare to inform the police about such activities. Then, there is a reference to the statement of witness "b", a resident and hawker from D. N. Road area. In his statement recorded on 10th September, 1996, the witness has disclosed the incident of 23rd July, 1996 implicating the detenue and his two associates. In the said incident the detenue attacked the said witness "b", took out knife and threatened him, abused him and removed Rs. 200/- from his pocket forcibly. The victim was further threatened with dire consequences in the event of his disclosure of the incident to anyone.