PARVEZ FAIZULLA KHAN Vs. A N ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu has challenged the order of detention passed against him by the Detaining Authority under the provisions of Section 3 of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 1.3.2007. The grounds of detention have been served on him. Counter has been filed and we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The material that was before the Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority while he satisfied himself about the necessity of detaining the detenu contained a report with respect to a criminal case which was pending against the detenu and also two in-camera statements recorded by the police during the discreet enquiry. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the pieces of material were irrelevant for the purpose of reaching to the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was danger to public order. The FIR was registered against the petitioner on 29.8.2006 being C.R. No. 172/06 under sections 307, 120(b) I.P.C. r/w. 4, 25 of Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 27.9.2006. The order granting him bail was passed by the learned court on 20.12.2006 but the petitioner could avail bail on 9.1.2007. It is submitted that subsequent to his detention, he has also been acquitted in that case. The order of detention is passed on 1.3.2007. He submits that after the petitioner was granted bail in that case, the respondents were bent upon keeping him inside the jail, therefore, they managed two statements of unknown witnesses and their statements became the second ground for detaining the petitioner. In grounds of detention, it is revealed that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu had been released on bail in the case referred to above. However, it is not revealed in the grounds of detention as to why a confidential enquiry was needed to be made after the petitioner had been bailed out in the offence, mentioned hereinabove. Besides, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the case which was registered on 29.8.2006 was also too remote in point of time. In paragraph 5(b) of the grounds of detention it is also stated that confidential enquiries into the criminal activities of the detenu were needed to be made because at that point of time there was nothing before the Detaining Authority to suggest that the detenu was a habitual criminal and only one case had been registered against him. Then they proceeded to record the statement of "A" and "B" both the witnesses whilst stated that the detenu was creating problems of law and order and witnesses were scared of testifying against him, referred to only one specific instance which related to an incident of August / September, 2006. If an incident had occurred in September, 2006, the Authorities did not thought it fit to take action against the detenu till March, 2007, which would mean that these statements were recorded only for the purpose of detaining the detenu who had been bailed out in a case which had been registered against him.

(3.) We have gone through the statements of "A" and "B", they have referred to certain instances but it does not give an impression that there had been any danger to public order. There might have been some occasions in which the detenu had harassed the persons but there was nothing to come to a conclusion that there was any danger to public order. Even in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, where the detaining authority has recorded his satisfaction that the detenu needs to be detained, he has nowhere stated that the activities of the detenu were detrimental to the public order. For these reasons, we allow the Petition. Rule is absolute. We quash the Order of detention and direct that the petitioner - detenu be released forthwith if not required in any other case.