30 Aug 2121

When the illegal activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also danger to the society at large, the sponsoring authority have no other alternative way except to select the remedy to detain the detenue under the MPDA Act - Bombay High Court

Case : Sunita Chandrashekhae Kapre v. Shri. Amitabh Gupta and Ors. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2392 of 2021

Court : Bombay High Court

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

Decided on : 30 Aug 2121

Relevant Statutes

Article 22 of the Constitution

Chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 110(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 8(2) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and dangerous Person Act, 1981.

Brief Facts and Procedural History

1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenue who is detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offender and Dangerous Person Act, 1981.

2. The detention order of Petitioner bearing No. PCB/DET/555/2021 dated 03.03.2021 was issued by respondent No.1, wherein it has been stated that with a view to preventing the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981.

3. The detenue was served with the communication purportedly issued by respondent no.1, containing the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detention order was issued.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order as mentioned hereinbefore the petitioner has filed this petition by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

The Issue of the Case

Whether the activities alleged against the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said area?

The Observations of the Court

1. The Honourable High Court of Bombay in case of Deepak Govind Murudhkar V. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police Writ Petition No. 2090/1999 submits that the offences falling under Chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or Chapter V of the Arms Act, can be taken into consideration for determining whether the person is a dangerous person under section 2(b-1) Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981.

2. The Honourable High Court of Bombay considered the reply filed by Respondent No. 1, so also the original records and is of the opinion that two months time taken for passing the order of detention, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be considered as significant so as to cause the interference in the order of detention. It is evident from the reply filed by respondent no. 1 that the delay of two months has been satisfactorily explained.

3. The Honourable High Court of Bombay also considered the view that the activities alleged against the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said area. The detenue and his associates used deadly weapons like swords so as to create terror in the minds of the public at large which has an impact upon the community residing in the said area.

4. The Honourable High Court of Bombay also observed that it is a matter of record that in spite of detenue was detained in the year 2018, challenges to said order was negated, after his release, he did not improve on the contrary started indulging in serious offences and posing danger to the interest of the public at large.

The Decision Held by the Court

1. The Honourable High Court of Bombay is of the opinion that there is no substance in the petition and the same is devoid of any merit, accordingly stands dismissed.

2. Rule stands Discharged.

Click here to view/download the judgement >