Nagpur :- Division Bench presided over Vinay Joshi and Vrushali Joshi JJ have quashed and set aside order of detention dated 4-04-2023 passed by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur 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.
Jakir @Jakira Hussain Ansari S/o Abdul Kadir Ansari was detained under section 3 MPDA Act vide by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur .
Jakir @Jakira Hussain Ansari S/o Abdul Kadir Ansari 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 Jakir @Jakira Hussain Ansari S/o Abdul Kadir Ansari submitted that, there was no proper verification of in camera statements by the detaining authority. It was further submitted that, detaining authority has taken into consideration irrelevant material while passing the detention order. It was submitted that, there was delay of more than 3 months in passing the detention order. It was further submitted that, there was complete non-application of mind while passing the order of detention.
While allowing the writ petition, Hon’ble Division Bench observed-
10. The second ground raised by the petitioner is about the absence of live link. The petitioner has alleged that last criminal activity has taken place on 7.1.2023 and the order of detention has been passed on 4.4.2023 and thus there is no live link requiring detention of petitioner and, therefore, impugned
order needs to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that there is a gap of nearly about 90 days in between incident and the date of passing order of detention. Thus, it is submitted that in camera statements would not have been taken into consideration while passing the detention order. The confidential statements of witnesses “A” and “B” disclose that the incident is of first week of February, their statements were recorded on 11.2.2024 verified on 2.3.2023, the Detaining Authority thereafter has verified in camera statements on 4.4.2023 on the date of passing of detention order. There is no remark that Detaining Authority has gone through the in camera statements, and verification is nothing but a farce.
12. We find that the said period is almost 90 days and the explanation in this regard is vague. It is difficult to understand as to why such a long period was taken only for typing documents and translating English version as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar V/s. S. Ramamurthi and Others reported in AIR 1994 SC 656 unexplained delay whether short or long, especially when the petitioner has taken a specific plea of delay, vitiates the detention order. As such, our appreciation is based on the observations in the case of Pradip’s case (supra) and the same is well founded.
Adv Mir Nagman Ali appeared for Jakir @Jakira Hussain Ansari S/o Abdul Kadir Ansari.
