Dixit 1 WP-2485-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2485 OF 2011 Fatima Shabbir Shaikh ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwari for the Petitioner. Mrs. Aruna Pai, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihanmumbai dated 15th April, 2009 bearing D.O. No.14/PCB/DP/ZONE-V111/2009 issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). This detention order along with the grounds of detention came to be served on the Detenu on 27th April, 2011, while the Detenu was in jail in connection with the offence in C.R. No.22 of 2011 and other criminal cases pending against him in Nirmal Nagar Dixit 2 WP-2485-11 Police Station. The Petitioner has neither made grievance about the delay in execution of the detention order, nor about the fact that the copy of the grounds of detention and the order which was served on him on 27th April, 2011 were in language not known to him. As a matter of fact, the Respondents have filed affidavit disclosing that the translated copy of the order of detention and grounds of detention were served on the Detenu together on 27th April, 2011. 2. The grievance made before us by the Counsel for the Petitioner is only two fold. The first contention is that the grounds on which the Detenu has been detained in exercise of the powers conferred under the said Act by the Commissioner of Police, by no stretch of imagination would warrant such a drastic action. The second contention is that the Detenu was arrested on 16th April, 2011 in connection with C.R. No.22 of 2011. That arrest was ex-facie illegal. On that basis it is asserted that since the initial arrest of the Detenu was illegal, his continued detention is vitiated and, as a result, his continued detention even after service of order of detention and grounds of detention on and from 27th April, 2011 would be illegal. These are the only two points urged before us. 3. Reverting to the first ground of challenge, it is noticed that in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has referred to the activities of the Detenu relating back from 4th August, 2008. It has, in particular, noticed the three Dixit 3 WP-2485-11 criminal cases registered against the Detenu being C.R. No.194 of 2008 dated 5th August, 2008, for offence under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506(2), 34 IPC read with Section 37(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act; C.R. No.275 of 2008 dated 24th October, 2008 for offence under Section 379, 34 of the IPC and the third being C.R. No.309 of 2008 dated 11th November, 2008 under Section 224 of the IPC; all registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station. In addition to the said three criminal cases registered against the Detenu, the Detaining Authority has referred to other material including the in-camera statements of witnesses (A) and (B) respectively, which referred to the prejudicial activities carried out by the Detenu during the relevant period. On the basis of the said material, the Detaining Authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the Detenu is a dangerous person, as defined in Section 2(b-1) under the said Act and has unleashed a reign of terror and has become a perpetual danger to the Society at large in the localities in question where the people are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying out their daily vocations under the constant shadow of fear and even tempo of life of citizens is badly disturbed. The Detaining Authority has further recorded that the Detenu is a habitual criminal and action taken against him under the ordinary law of the land is found to be insufficient and ineffective to put a stop on his criminal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority then proceeded to record its subjective satisfaction that the Detenu is acting in manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Dixit 4 WP-2485-11 public order and, that, it was further satisfied that if the Detenu was released on bail in connection with the criminal cases, he was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and it was necessary to detain him under the said Act to prevent him from acting in such a prejudicial manner in future. 4. Considering the material relied by the Detaining Authority, as is reflected in the grounds of detention and, in particular, the three criminal cases registered against the Detenu and two in-camera statements, which refer to the involvement of the Detenu in serious offences covered under the specified chapters of the IPC, we fail to understand as to how those offences or activities of the Detenu were not sufficient to proceed against the Detenu. As aforesaid, the Detaining Authority has recorded satisfaction on perusal of the relevant material. It is not open for this Court to sit over the said satisfaction as a Court of Appeal. Accordingly, we find no merits in the first contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner to question the validity of the impugned detention order. 5. We now turn to the second contention taken on behalf of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the Detenu was illegally arrested on 16th April, 2011 albeit in connection with C.R. No.22 of 2011 registered with Nirmal Nagar Police Station. It is not in dispute that while the Detenu was in jail in connection with Dixit 5 WP-2485-11 the said criminal case, the impugned detention order and the grounds of detention came to be served on him by the Detaining Authority. In other words, the impugned detention order passed on 15th April, 2009 was executed on the Detenu on 27th April, 2011 while the Detenu was in jail in connection with some criminal case registered against him in the year 2011. 6. As aforesaid, the Petitioner has not made any grievance about the delay in execution of the detention order for the reasons best known to him. Perhaps, the Petitioner may be aware of the fact that the Detenu was evading execution of detention order for all this time. It is not necessary for us to traverse this aspect any further. Even if we accept the plea of the Petitioner that the Detenu was illegally arrested on 16th April, 2011, that by itself cannot be the basis to hold that the detention order is vitiated. At any rate, the detention of the Detenu on and from 27th April, 2011, upon service of the impugned detention order dated 15th April, 2009 along with the grounds of detention, would be legitimate. For, it is well established position that even if initial detention of the Detenu is illegal, that would not necessarily entail in continued detention being illegal. It is useful to refer to the dictum in the case of Bhavesh R. Dani Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 741 (Para 12). 7. The fact remains that, in the present case, it is common ground that the Dixit 6 WP-2485-11 order of detention and the grounds of detention were duly served on the Detenu while he was in jail on 27th April, 2011. It is not the case of the Petitioner that though the Detenu was arrested on 16th April, 2011 in connection with the impugned detention order, but has been shown as detained on and from 27th April, 2011. If the Detenu has any grievance regarding his illegal arrest on 16th April, 2011 in connection with C.R. No.22 of 2011, the Detenu is free to pursue the same before the appropriate Court dealing with C.R. No.22 of 2011 registered with Nirmal Nagar Police Station. Accordingly, even the second contention raised to challenge the impugned detention order and to persuade us to hold that the continued detention of the Detenu on and from 16th April, 2011 was illegal, must fail. 8. Accordingly, this Petition is devoid of any merits. The same is rejected. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]