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 him under sec 12 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.
Gajanan Londhe was detained under section 3 MPDA Act vide by Collector, Yavatmal.
Gajanan 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 12 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 Gajanan submitted that the orders of detention passed by the Collector, Yavatmal is bad in law as the said authority failed to consider the settled proposition of law while issuing detention order. It was further submitted that the material has been suppressed with regard to the dates of recording of statements of Witnesses A and B when the same verified. It was further submitted that there is no live link with regard to the offences which are mentioned in the detention order, but not relied upon while passing such order. It was further submitted that two offences relied upon by the Detaining Authority are not in any way connected with disturbance of public peace. The statements of Witnesses A and B are the allegations in general and not about the specific instances. The bail order in which the Gajanan was released, was not placed before the Detaining Authority. There is inordinate and unexplained delay from the date of last offence and the order of detention. There is no subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority which vitiates the impugned order.
While allowing the writ petition, Hon’ble Division Bench observed-
21. Applying such principles to the matter in hand from the grounds of detention, it is clear that two offences referred to in the detention order and more specifically in Paragraph No.8, are clearly offences against individuals and not against the general public or to consider breach of public peace in general. Such offences nowhere create fear psychosis in the society. The first offence with regard to the recovery of two knives from the trunk of the motor cycle cannot be considered as an offence against the public as it is not the case of a concerned Police Officer that the detenue was found using such knives to commit offence. The second offence is purely a theft case which is against an individual.
22. The Detaining Authority nowhere discussed in the entire grounds of detention as to whether the detenue was released on bail in both such offences. Thus, it is clear that the material regarding grant of bail or otherwise has been suppressed from the Detaining Authority.
23. As far as the statements of Witnesses A and B are concerned, on perusal of the original statements, it is clear that the Witness A stated before the Police on 20/05/2022 that he knows the detenue from the last 5 years and is involved in various offences. He claimed that during lockdown, the detenue used to visit his shop for repair of his mobile. However, since the shop was close, the witness was unable to repair it. The detenue started abusing him and then banging the glass which was on the counter and then assaulted the witness. The witness then specifically stated that he went to the Police Station at Arni and lodged his complaint. After such report was lodged, the detenue again came and abused him, but he ignored the detenue. The second incident which Witness A discloses, is somewhere at the end of December, 2021 wherein the detenue obstructed him and questioned as to why he reported the matter to the police. The detenue then assaulted one person with an iron rod. The Witness A disclosed that he again went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. This shows that Witness A went to the Police Station on two occasions and lodged his complaints which clearly rules out any fear in the mind of the witness either to approach the police or to appear in the Court for deposing against the detenue. There is no statement of witness A that he is unable to attend the Police Station or the Court due to fear of the detenue.
24. Statement of Witness B recorded on 25/05/2022 is again disclosing some instances against the detenue and claims that he is unable to attend the Police Station due to fear. Both the statements were verified by SDPO, Pusad on 30/05/2022 by interacting with the witnesses and also by visiting the place referred to by the witnesses and by enquiring with the general public. He found that both these witnesses are giving correct statements.
