19 Jun 2121

The Detaining Authority can pass the detention order if they are satisfied that there was imminent possibility of the petitioner being released on bail or there is a possibility that the person will indulge in similar activities again - Bombay High Court

Case : Vijay Rajendra Patil v. the Commissioner of Police, Nashik and Others Writ Petition No. 797 of 2021

Court : Bombay High Court

Bench : Justice S. S. Shinde and Justice N. J. Jamadar

Decided on : 19 Jun 2121

Relevant Statutes

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

Sections 34, 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sections 2(b-1) and 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Sand Smugglers and the persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act 1981

Brief Facts and Procedural History

1. The Petitioner was arrested on 4th July 2020 for the attempt to commit murder of Gangadhar Pandit Rao Aaher (First Informant) and Suresh Ramesh Salunkhe (Injured Witness) along with the co-accused under Section 307. 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

2. Respondent No. 1 was of the view that the Petitioner was a dangerous person as per section 2(b-1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Sand Smugglers  and the persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act 1981 while he was in the judicial custody and passed the detention order dated 29th July 2020 to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order which was approved by the Government ton 30th July 2020. Respondent No.1 passed the order of detention under section 3 (2)  of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Sand Smugglers  and the persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act 1981.

3. The petitioner preferred a petition to quash and set aside the detention order by invoking the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Indian Constitution and contended that the detention order suffers from the non-application of the mind and non-consideration of vital material and further stated that it unjustifiably infringes his personal liberty.

 The Issue before the Case

Whether there was the imminent possibility of the petitioner being released on bail and acts or conduct of the petitioner was prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order?

The Observations of the Court

1. The Honourable Bombay High Court observed that there should be three elements i.e. there is reason to believe, there is a possibility of his release and such person would probably indulge in prejudicial activities then the order of detention cannot be inferred that the detenu was in the confinement when the detention was made. In one of the judgments referred i.e. Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and Anr, 2003(8) SCC 342, the detaining authority should apply their mind and satisfied themselves that there are cogent materials that there is the likelihood of his release and due to his antecedent activities, he must be detained to prevent him from indulging in similar activities. 

2. The Honourable Bombay High Court observed that the allegation against the co-accused was not serious in nature and the role was minor. The Honourable High court observed that the proposed detenu is accused of serious nature crime, it is not a ground to question the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. 

3. In one of the Judgments i.e. Shahid Mohd. Yusuf  Shaikh vs. M.N. Singh, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 857, it was held in case of serious offences like murder, there is always the likelihood of such person being released on bail. The Honourable High Court observed that the Detaining Authority was justified that there was an imminent possibility of the petitioner being released on bail. The Honourable High Court observed that non-consideration of the granting bail orders to the co-accused does not impair the satisfaction obtained by the Detaining Authority. 

4. The Honourable Bombay High Court also observed that in-camera statements of the witnesses and the antecedents of the petitioner does not suffer from the infirmities like the cogent material, non-application of the mind and non – consideration of the relevant material. 

The Decision Held by the Court

The Petition stands dismissed and the acts or conduct of the petitioner was prejudicial to maintenance of the public order are not at fault.

Click here to view/download the judgement >