GANESH SUBHASH MASURKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention dated 06.11.2017 issued by the Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in BlackMarketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act for short).

(2.) The Petitioner was served the grounds of detention dated 06.11.2017 formulated by the detaining authority on the basis of which the order of detention was issued against the Petitioner. The grounds of detention refer to the list of offences and preventive action taken against the Petitioner. It is also stated that the detaining authority has considered the offences mentioned at Sr. No. 5 of the chart incorporated in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. The offences at Sr. No. 5 of the said chart to C.R. No. 124 of 2017 registered with Sahakarnagar Police Station on 204.2017 for offences under Section 307, 336, 323, 504, 506(2), 34 of IPC and under the provisions of Arms Act as well as 37(1)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The grounds also referred to the statements of 3 witnesses viz witness A, B and C whose statements were recorded in camera. The said witnesses have referred to the incidents dated 18.05.2017, 1.06.2017 and 4.06.2017 respectively. It is further stated that the Petitioner is habitual and dangerous criminal involved in serious crimes. In paragraph 7 it is stated that, the detaining authority is subjectively satisfied that the Petitioner is a 'dangerous person' as defined in the Section 2 (b1) of the said Act. He has unleashed a reign of terror and have become a perpetual danger to the society at large in the area of Sahakarnagar Police Station in Pune city. The people there are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living under shadow of fear. In paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that on the basis of the material placed before the detaining authority she is subjectively satisfied that the detenu is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the order of detention and the grounds of detention suffers from nonapplication of mind of the detaining authority. It is submitted that the detaining authority has referred to and relied upon the Criminal case registered vide C.R. No. 124 of 2017, wherein the Petitioner preferred his application for Bail on 10.08.2017 and the said bail application was rejected by the Session's Court, Pune on 12.09.2017 and thereafter, the Petitioner has not preferred any bail application before the Court. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner will be released on bail in the near future. Particularly, taking a note of the observation made by the Session's Court while rejecting the bail application of the Petitioner. There was no imminent/real possibility of Petitioner being released on bail and hence, the conclusion drawn by the detaining authority is erroneous which shows nonapplication of mind. Thus, the impugned order of detention is illegal, bad in law, and liable to be set aside. The said ground is raised as ground 5(e) in the Petition which is as follows;