(1.) Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The Petitioner Shamim Makmood Khan, who is the mother of Detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan, has preferred this Petition questioning
the preventive detention order passed against the dentenu on 16 th October,
2019 by Respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The said detention order has been passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous
persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act').
The said detention order has been issued as, according to the Detaining
Authority, the Detenu is a Dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. The detention order is based on two Crimes
i.e. C.R. No. 188/2019 occurred on 09.06.2019 registered with Samarth Police
Sation, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 506(2) of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act read with 4/25 of the Arms Act read with Section 7 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act; and another incident i.e. C.R. No. 208/2019 occurred on
11.07.2019 registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 324, 506(2), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and
two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', recorded.
(3.) Though number of grounds have been raised in the present Petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioner / Detenu has pressed only five grounds
before us i.e. Ground Nos. 'A', 'B', 'C', 'F', and 'O'. Those grounds are reproduced
herein below in verbatim:-
A. The Petitioner says and submits that the orders annexed and marked at Exhibits "A" and "B" are manifestly erroneous and patently illegal in as much as the same are based in total defiance to the facts of the case, and the said orders also display a complete non-application of mind and is malafide on the part of the Detaining Authority.
B. The Petitioner says and submits that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order entailing his detention under the provisions of the said Act. None of the activities of the detenu, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, can be said to be disturbing the maintenance of public order and as such the orders are obviously illegal, bad in law, malafide, unconstitutional and unsustainable.
C. The Petitioner says and submits that it is obligatory on the part of the Respondent No. 1 under Section 3 (3) of the said Act to send a REPORT forthwith in respect of the detention, together with the grounds of detention and other particulars to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to furnish details of the exact date on which the proposal and the findings and also the copies of the documents relied upon were placed before him and also the exact date on which he submitted the said report under Section 3(3) to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to furnish the details of the exact date on which the said report was actually received by it. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to state as to what were the documents accompanying the said report and are further called upon to state whether the grounds of detention, as formulated by Respondent No. 1 and the material on which the grounds are based as well as other documents, if any, including the proposal and the findings
were forwarded to Respondent No. 2 together with the said report. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to furnish all details about the consideration, if any, of the said report including the date of which such consideration, if any, and the exact date of the approval of the detention order and the exact date of issuance of the order of approval. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to state whether the approval, if any, was by a person competent and duly authorized under the relevant Rules of Business and/or the Standing Orders issued thereunder, to exercise the power of the State Government under section 3(3) of the said Act. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to furnish the above information to this Hon'ble Court based on the authentic contemporaneous official records and by due production thereof, before this Hon'ble Court since the documents relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention were not sent along with the order of detention for approval and if at all sent it was only after the order of detention was allegedly passed. If any of the provisions of the Section 3(3) of the said Act are not strictly observed or complied with, the detention and/or continued detention is illegal, unsustainable, unconstitutional, null and void.
F. The Respondent No. 1 is bound to produce for the scrutiny of this Hon'ble Court the proposal and the findings for the detenu's detention, relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention. If the grounds of detention are no more than a repetition of the proposal with minor grammatical and consequential variations, there cannot be a greater proof of non-application of mind. It is well settled that the liberty of a Subject is a serious matter and the same cannot be trifled with any such casual, indifferent and routine manner. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to state whether before formulating the grounds of detention, he did go through the opinion of different subordinate officers, if any, written on the said proposal. The Respondent No. 1 having gone through the
opinion of his subordinate Officers and having been influenced by them in formulating the grounds of detention and in the passing of the detention order, then the said detention order suffers from non-application of mind and is illegal, malafide, unconstitutional, null and void.
O. The Petitioner says and submits that the recording of "In- Camera" statements seems to be fabricated and got-up statements in order to put the detenu behind bars under Preventive Detention. The Petitioner says and submits that, even otherwise, the incidents mentioned therein are stale, remote and not proximate in time and, therefore, the order of detention smacks of malafides. ;