KULSUM MOHD FAIMID QURESHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of a detenu- Mohd.Faimid Khalil Ahmed Qureshi challenges an order of detention dated 23.6.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No.LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996), (for short, "the said Act") with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The order of detention is founded on the grounds of detention dated 23.6.2006 communicated to the detenu as provided for under section 8 of the said Act read with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The action of detention is based on a solitary incident that occurred on 24.3.06 at about 15.30 hours. It appears that an offence under section 326 read with 34 of IPC has been registered in respect of the said incident at Nagpada Police Station bearing C.R.No.196/2006 on a complaint lodged by Arif Abdul Rajjak Shaikh against the detenu and his associates Mohd. Sohail @ Chittu Yunus Ansari, Abdul Karim Mehboob Shaikh and Ashfaq Noor Ahmed Sayyed. In connection with this incident, statements of some witnesses including incamera statements of witnesses A and B referred to in the grounds of detention, were recorded and a detailed reference thereto is made in the grounds of detention dated 23.6.06. Based on this incident, it is mentioned in the grounds of detention that the detenu is a weapon wielding dangerous desperado of violent type having taken to the life of crime for the sake of easy money and to show his upper hand in the localities of Kamathipura, Jairajbhai lane, Sukhlaji Street, Foras road and areas adjoining thereto within the jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. It is further stated that the detenu has unleashed a reign of terror in the above areas and thereby has become a perpetual danger to the life and properties of people residing and carrying out their daily vocations in these areas. It appears, in the past, with a view to curtail the activities of the detenu and his associates who posed a great threat to the maintenance of a public order and tranquillity in the localities of Nagpada police station, the detenu was detained under N.S.A in the year 1992 vide order dated 31.12.1992 for a period of one year.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on two grounds. Firstly, that the order of detention is a classic example of non-application of mind, and secondly the activities of the detenu by no stretch of imagination could be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Though in the writ petition several other grounds have also been raised challenging the order of detention, Ms Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, confined her arguments on the aforesaid grounds being ground nos 4(vi) and 4(viii) in the Memo of petition. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the ground nos.4(vi) and 4(viii) to avoid a detailed reference to the submissions made by Ms Ansari in support thereof.