WP.odt 10 of public order in the above localities and adjoining areas.Learned APP invites our attention to the para 5 of the affidavit-in- reply and submits that, there are as many as four offences are registered against the petitioner in Jawaharnagar Police Station, Kranti Chowk Police Station, Satara Police Station and MIDC Waluj Police Station, respectively.He further submits that, the chapter case was also registered against the petitioner in Satara Police Station and preventive action was taken against him.He submits that, in spite of registration of the aforesaid offences, the petitioner has not controlled his alleged activities; on the contrary his illegal and dangerous activities are showing ascending trend.Reserved on : 23.03.2017 Pronounced on : 03.04.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 2 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::This Writ Petition is filed with following prayer:Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::District Magistrate & Ors.2, it is necessary that there should be verification made of the in-camera statements and the copies of the verification needs to be furnished to the petitioner detenu.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::2 2013 All.M.R. [Cri.] 16::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 5 It is further submitted that, the dangerous person is defined as per Section 2 (b-1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 [for short 'MPDA Act'].However, in the present case, the Detaining Authority has failed to prove that the petitioner is dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 [b-1] of the MPDA Act. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to 'Rajput Community', and he understands Hindi language but the copy of the order along with the proposal which was supplied to the petitioner is in English and Marathi, and therefore, the petitioner could not submit his representation properly as he does not understand either Marathi or English.It is submitted that, there was no any verification of the in-camera statements recorded by the authority, and therefore, on ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 6 that ground also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.The Commissioner of Police Pune and Ors.5, and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Deepak Vs.The Commissioner of Police, Pune City and ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::It is submitted that, there is no 3 2016 All M.R. [Cri.] 930 4 2000 [2] Mh.L.J. 400 5 2015 All M.R. [Cri.] 4437::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 7 live link or nexus between the crimes registered against the petitioner and definition of the dangerous person as referred in Section 2 [b-1] of the MPDA Act. It is submitted that, it is only the person, who commits offences habitually, can be called as 'dangerous person'.However, in the present case, the authority has relied upon the alleged solitary incident of registration of Crime No.189/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354 (A) (D), 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC r/w.Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, dated 21st April, 2016, against the petitioner, and wrongly treated the petitioner as habitual offender.Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petition deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for respondent - State relying upon ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 8 the affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.3 made following submissions:::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::That the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of detention on the basis of grounds on which the detention has been effected, in view of Section 5-A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug- offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black- marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself, and accordingly, it may kindly be dismissed.That sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds of detention cannot be a subject matter on the basis of which the petition could be entertained under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.It is subjective satisfaction of the detaining ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 9 authority that the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and with a view to prevent him from committing such acts, detention is necessary, are the relevant considerations.That the petitioner is a 'Dangerous Person' as defined in the said Act and he has committed serious offences i.e. assault, outraging the modesty of woman, rape, dacoity, criminal intimidation, act of threatening common people, prostitution, etc. He has created reign of terror in the locality of MIDC Waluj and adjoining areas and disturbed the peace over there.Due to his criminal and dangerous activities, the persons residing in the jurisdiction of Police Station MIDC Waluj and adjoining areas remained under constant fear and terror.Therefore, the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's criminal and dangerous activities are prejudicial to the maintenance ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.Even preventive action taken under the Code of Criminal Procedure failed to curb his prejudicial activities.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::That, after considering the ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 11 seriousness of the above said crimes, the Police Inspector, MIDC Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, conducted confidential enquiry.In an enquiry, it is revealed that due to petitioner's fear, nobody is willing to give statement openly against him.On an assurance to the witnesses that, their names and identity, and other particulars would be kept secretly, and they will not be called upon to give evidence against the petitioner in any court or any other forum, witnesses agreed to give their statements.The Police Inspector, MIDC Waluj Police Station accordingly recorded the statements of the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', in-camera.After completion of confidential inquiry, the Police Inspector of Police Station MIDC Waluj submitted proposal to the Detaining Authority i.e. respondent no.3, for taking action under Section 3 [1] of the MPDA Act, 1981, through concerned ACP Cantonment Division and DCP ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 12 [Zone-1] at Aurangabad.In the said report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police [Zone01], Aurangabad has mentioned that the facts given in the statements and apprehension expressed by the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', is true and reasonable.After perusing the said report, respondent no.3 was satisfied that, the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', is true and reasonable.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::In view of the offences registered against the petitioner and the statements of witnesses the detaining authority is convinced that the petitioner is a 'dangerous person', and the people residing within the jurisdiction of Police Station, referred herein above in para 7, and the residents ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.Therefore, after arriving at subjective satisfaction, respondent no.3 passed the detention order on 4th June, 2016, and as the petitioner was in judicial custody in Police Station MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad in Crime No.189/2016, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354 [A], 354 [D], 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, after obtaining prior permission of the concerned Court, the detention order ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 14 was served on the petitioner on the same day.After receipt of the opinion from the Advisory Board, the detention order has been confirmed by the State Government, vide its order No.All the mandatory provisions have been completed in time as stipulated in the said Act.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::1698.2016 Cri.It is further submitted that, the petitioner is a 'dangerous person' as defined in Section 2 [b-1] of the MPDA Act, 1981, as he has committed serious offences i.e. assault, outraging the modesty of woman, rape, dacoity, criminal intimidation, act of threatening common people, and indulging into encouraging prostitution.As a matter of fact, at the time of passing the detention order, the petitioner was in judicial custody in Police Station MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad, in Crime No. 189/2016 under Sections 376, 354 [A], 354 [D], 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, and after obtaining prior permission of ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 16 the concerned Court, the detention order was served on the petitioner on the same day.Thereafter, he has been detained in Central Prison, Aurangabad.It is not correct to say that the order passed under the MPDA Act is unjust, arbitrary and illegal and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.As a matter of fact, the petitioner committed offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC, and said acts have become a serious threat and source of danger to the lives of law abiding and peace loving citizens and disturbed the public order in the jurisdiction of Police Station MIDC Waluj and adjoining areas.There is strict adherence to relevant legal provisions before passing the order of detention.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::The learned APP appearing for respondent - State also invites our attention ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.He also invites our attention to the further affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and submits that on 4th June, 2016, the detention order has been served on the petitioner in Central Prison, Aurangabad, and at that time the statement of the petitioner was recorded before the Police Inspector of Police Station MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad, and Jailor of the Central Prison, Aurangabad.The petitioner stated in his statement that, he has studied upto 10th Standard in Marathi medium at Milind School, Aurangabad, and thereafter, he studied up to 12th Standard in Arts Faculty in Deogiri College at Aurangabad.He also stated that he learnt Marathi, English and Hindi languages during his studies.Therefore, he requested that the grounds of detention and other ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 18 relevant documents should be supplied in Marathi language.Therefore, the grounds of detention and other relevant documents were served on the petitioner along with its Marathi translation on 7th June, 2016 in time.It is further submitted that, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Aurangabad, has verified the truthfulness of in-camera statements of witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'.The mandate of verification is duly complied in the present case and the same is reflected at the bottom of statements of these witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::Therefore, the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State submits that the petition may be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length.With their able 6 1990 [2] SCC 456::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 20 assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto, grounds of detention, the impugned order, affidavit- in-reply of respondent no.1, affidavit-in- reply filed by respondent no.3, further affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.3, and the original record made available for perusal by respondents.So far as first ground raised by the petitioner that the period of detention is not mentioned in the order dated 4th June, 2016 passed by the Detaining Authority, and further no reasons assigned by the State Government to make order operative for one year, and therefore, the order of detention deserves to be quashed is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Devaki [cited supra], after placing reliance upon the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court wherein same issue was involved, has taken a view that, an order of detention is not rendered illegal merely ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 21 because it does not specify the period of detention.Para 13 of the said Judgment reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::WP.odt 23 detention.When, no period is mentioned in an order, the implication is that the detention is for the maximum period prescribed under the Act.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::We have carefully perused grounds of the detention.In para 3, there is reference to the Crime No.115/2013 registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC.There is also reference to Crime No.117/2015, registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.In all these three cases, the trial is pending.There is another Crime No.189/2016 registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354 [A], 354 [D], 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC r/w.Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2000, which is pending for investigation.In the ground of detention, each of the afore-mentioned crimes have been mentioned.The details in respect of the allegations in the said FIR, and the subsequent orders passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, has also been mentioned.Likewise in respect of other ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 25 crimes also, separate grounds are mentioned, with details about the said crime numbers and subsequent developments happened after registration of that crime.On careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR being Crime No.117/2015 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Crime No.3019/2015 registered with Satara Police Station and Crime No.189/2016 registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station and also chapter case of which proceedings are subsequently dropped, does have nexus with passing of order of detention by the Detaining Authority.Apart from the afore-mentioned three crimes and chapter case, in-camera statements of the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' are also recorded.On careful perusal of the original record, we find that, those statements are verified by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Aurangabad City and it is mentioned in side margin of every in-camera statements that, ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.Upon perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.1, ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 27 it is clearly mentioned that the State through Department of Home has confirmed the order of detention.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::So far as third ground agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Detaining Authority has failed to prove that, the petitioner is dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 [b-1] of the MPDA Act is concerned; the petitioner is involved in as many as four offences; which are registered by way of separate crime numbers, and also in-camera statements of four witnesses have been recorded, and on the basis of said cogent and sufficient material, the Commissioner of Police arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is dangerous person and he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.Therefore, the petitioner's assertion that, he cannot be termed as 'dangerous person', deserves no ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 28 consideration.The material brought on record by the respondents unequivocally indicated about the involvement of the petitioner in habitually committing offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::WP.odt 29 that, he studied up to 10th Standard in Marathi medium at Milind School, Aurangabad, and thereafter, he has passed out 12th Standard from Arts Faculty, and he studied in Marathi, English and Hindi languages and he is conversant with all three languages.In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the aforesaid fourth ground agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::As already observed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Vasant Pardeshi, has verified the said statements and the Commissioner of Police has also gone through the said statement and subjectively satisfied that the facts given in the statement of the witnesses ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 30 and apprehension expressed is true and reasonable.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered view that, the order impugned in this Petition needs no interference, hence, the Petition is devoid of any merits, and the same stands rejected.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::

Cited provisions: Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code