Nagpur :- Division Bench presided over Vinay Joshi and Vrushali Joshi JJ have quashed and set aside order of detention dated 28-09-2023 passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Wardha 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.
Dikshit @Guthali Milind Bhagat was detained under section 3 MPDA Act vide by Collector/District Magistrate, Wardha.
Dikshit @Guthali Milind Bhagat 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 19 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 Dikshit @Guthali Milind Bhagat submitted that, detaining authority was supplied with only operative part of bail order passed in Crime No. 481/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that, even if it is considered that activities of petitioner are dangerous to public health, same would not mean that activities are creating public order situation. It was further submitted that, detaining authority has taken into consideration irrelevant material while passing the detention order.
While allowing the writ petition, Hon’ble Division Bench observed-
12. In this case the authority has relied on the crimes registered against the petitioner since 2020. The both in-camera statements of the witnesses are also recorded on 04.08.2023. The general statements against the person involved in selling of the country liquor are made by both the witnesses. There is no nexus and live link between the last crime registered against the petitioner and the detention order passed by the authority.
13. On perusal of the detention order, it is abundantly clear that the detaining authority not only considered the relevant material but apart from said material, the extraneous material is also considered by the detaining authority
The petitioner was on bail in all the offences considered by the authority, only operative part of bail order was supplied to authority in Crime No.481/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and reasoned bail order was not placed before the authority
17. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases supra that once the requisite subjective satisfaction of detaining authority is vitiated and the cases which are earlier not considered are considered by the detaining authority, the detention order renders invalid.
Adv Mir Nagman Ali appeared for Dikshit @Guthali Milind Bhagat.
