Nagpur :- Division Bench presided over Vinay Joshi and Bharat Deshpande JJ have quashed and set aside order of detention passed by District Collector, Yavatmal thereby detaining Shaikh Husain @ Shahrukh Shaikh Fatru under sec 12 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.
Shaikh Husain @ Shahrukh Shaikh Fatru was detained under section 3 MPDA Act vide by Collector, Yavatmal.
Shahrukh was detained on the allegations that he is a dreaded criminal as a result of which people are scared to depose against him. There were 10 criminal cases registered against him and 2 persons had given in camera statement against him. It was alleged that his activities were disturbing the public order.
Adv Mir Nagman Ali appearing for the Shahrukh submitted that the orders of detention passed by the Collector, Yavatmal is bad in law as there is no application of mind of the detaining authority to the material placed before it thereby vitiating the order. Secondly, the statements of witnesses recorded in-camera are disclosing about stale and old instances, which have no live-link or nexus with the order of detention. Thirdly, = there are no proper translation of some of the documents specifically the medical reports. Fourthly, he claimed that the offences alleged against the detenue and relied upon in the grounds of detention has no nexus with public order and those offences are against individual.
While allowing the writ petition, Hon’ble Division Bench observed-
(18) First of all, it is observed that the grounds of detention nowhere discloses that the detaining authority interacted with the witnesses A and B so as to satisfy itself that the statements of these witnesses and genuine to be true and or instances which they disclosed were correct. There is no interaction by the detaining authority with the Assistant Superintendent of Police, who verified such statements. The copies of statements of witnesses A and B attached to the petition and provided to the detenue, nowhere show any endorsement of the detaining authority so as to confirm that such statements were perused by the detaining authority and said authority considered that the witnesses were depicting true events. There is absolutely no whisper in the grounds of detention as to on what count the detaining authority found itself satisfied about the truthfulness or genuineness of such statements made by the witnesses.
(20) The second ground is with regard to the stale instances which the witnesses deposed. It was rightly argued by Mr. Ali that so called instances stated by witnesses A and B are stale instances which had no nexus or live-link. On these grounds also the detention order needs to be set aside.
(21) Two offences, which have been referred to in the order of detention and, more specifically, in para no.8 are concerned, first offence vide Crime No.648/2021 is in connection with a mob of around 200 persons. Though, the petitioner is shown as one of the accused, it is necessary to consider the mob mentality specifically when religious sentiments are tarnished. Such offence though considered as an offence against public order, could not have beem considered for the purpose of taking such drastic step of detention.
(22) The second offence found in para 8 vide Crime no.341/2022 is purely against an individual and the brief facts show that the dispute arose on the spur of moment due to traffic violation. Such offence, by no stretch of imagination, could be considered as against the public order.
Adv Mir Nagman Ali appeared for Shaikh Husain @ Shahrukh Shaikh Fatru.
