- (1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles herself as the sister-in-law of the detenu Vinod Sakpal @ Vinod Gulab Pisal, has impugned the detention order dated 29th May, 1999 passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. L. V. of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M. P. D. A. Act. ). The detention order along with grounds of detention which are also dated 29th May, 1999 was served on the detenu on 31st May, 1999 and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits A and C respectively to this petition.
(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the detenu warranting issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention (Exhibit C ). Their perusal shows that the impugned detention order is founded on one C. R. and three in-camera statements. The C. R. which is referred to in para 4 (a-iv) of the grounds of detention is C. R. No. 447/98, under sections 353, 307, 506 (ii), 34 of the I. P. C. r/w 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act registered at Mulund Police Station against the detenu and his associates on the complaint filed by P. C. Sanjay Manchekar on 16th November, 1998. The details relating to the said C. R. are contained in paragraphs 4 (a) to 4 (a-iii) of the grounds of detention. In short, they are as under:-Informant Sanjay Manchekar is a resident of Shivshankar Apartment, R. No. 13, Sector-18, Nerul, New Mumbai. One Suresh Sahagal, owner of hotel Hot Plate, situated at Mulund (West), was receiving threatening telephone calls from the last 15 days (prior to 16-11-1998) from an unknown person for Khandani money. He complained to the Additional Commissioner of Police, North-East Region and was provided with police protection. On 16th November, 1998 from 9. 30 a. m. Police Constable Sanjay Manchekar in plain clothes was on protection duty at the hotel Hot Plate. At about 2. 50 p. m. he noticed the detenus associates Nilesh Kadam and Raju Gaikwad approaching hotel Hot Plate in a very suspicious manner. He told Nilesh Kadam that he was a policeman and asked him and Raju Gaikwad to halt there. They, however, turned back and started hurriedly going away. On this, Sanjay Manchekar followed them. He noticed that the detenu and his associate Anant Tukaram Durgawale also joined Nilesh Kadam at Devidayal Cross Road Junction and started running away towards Devidayal Road. One of the associates of the detenu fired two rounds from his revolver towards Sanjay Manchekar. The latter in self-defence fired four rounds from his service pistol. On this, the detenu and his associates at the point of revolver and chopper threatened autorickshaw driver Baban Dhondiba More and sat in his autorickshaw and forced him to drive the same very fast. The said autorickshaw sped along the Devidayal Road. Sanjay Manchekar engaged another rickshaw and started chasing the rickshaw of the detenu and his associates. On the way the detenus associate Nilesh Kadam fired one round towards Sanjay Manchekars rickshaw. Sanjay Manchekar in turn fired two rounds from his service pistol. At P. K. Road and Goshala Road Junction the autorickshaw in which the detenu and others were going, collided with the compound wall of Pushpanjali Building and halted there. Sanjay Manchekar alighted from his rickshaw and started walking towards detenu and his associates. On this, the detenus associate Raju Harishchandra Gaikwad pointed a revolver towards him. Hence, Sanjay Manchekar fired one round from his service pistol towards him. When he reached near the detenus autorickshaw, the detenus associate Anant Tukaram Durgawale raised a chopper at him. Sanjay Manchekar at the point of service pistol warned them not to move. The detenu and his associate Nilesh Kadam were arrested on the spot and Nilesh Kadam was moved to Mulund General Hospital where he was pronounced dead. 2-A. The three in-camera statements are of witnesses A, B and C respectively and are dated 11th February, 1999, 12th February, 1999 and 14th February, 1999. Statement of Witness A: Witness A in his statement stated that he knew the detenu and his associates Nilesh Kadam, Raju Gaikwad and Anant Durgawale as notorious goondas who moved about armed with lethal weapons and collected hafta monies from shopkeepers and businessmen in areas of Bhandup and Mulund. One day in the last week of October, 1998, at about 8. 00 p. m. while he was present at his business place, the detenu and his associates Nilesh Kadam, Anant Durgawale and Raju Gaikwad came there. On seeing the detenu he got frightened. Nilesh Kadam demanded four months hafta monies in advance and when he showed his inability and requested for time, he whipped out a revolver and gave a fist blow on his stomach due to which he sat down. At this juncture Anant Durgawale kicked him and Raju Gaikwad ransacked the material in the shop. On seeing this incident the customers present in the shop ran away helter-skelter without paying money for the material they had purchased and the nearby shopkeepers downed their shutter. On account of fright he did not report the incident. Statement of Witness B: witness B in his statement stated that he knew the detenu and his associates Nilesh Kadam, Anant Durgawale and Raju Gaikwad as notorious goondas who moved about armed with deadly weapons such as revolver, chopper, sword and forcibly collected haftas from the shopkeepers and businessmen on threats of assault. One day in the first week of November, 1998, while he and his servants were loading goods in the tempo in order to distribute the same to other businessmen, the detenu along with his said associates came, threatened him to take out hafta money and further told him that he would not be allowed to take his tempo. When he told the detenu and his associates that he would pay the money later, Nilesh Kadam whipped out a chopper and put the same on his neck. The detenu whipped out a rampuri knife and put the same at his stomach and assaulted him and Anant Durgawale and Raju Gaikwad started assaulting him with kicks and fists. On seeing this the servants of the witness and the pedestrians started running away. Anant Durgawale forcibly removed Rs. 2,360/- from his pocket and threatened him not to inform the police and as a consequence thereof he did not inform it. Statement of Witness C: witness C in his statement stated that he knew the detenu and his associates Nilesh Kadam, Anant Durgawale and Raju Gaikwad as notorious goondas from Bhandup and Mulund areas, who on the point of deadly weapons used to collect monies from the shopkeepers and businessmen on threats of assault. He stated that one day in the second week of November, 1998, the detenu and his associates came to the place of his business. Nilesh Kadam whipped out a revolver and held it on his head. The detenu whipped out a chopper and put on his stomach. Anant Durgawale took out a rampuri knife and stood there. He got frightened and implored the detenu and his associates to come later on and take the money. On this Nilesh Kadam pulled out table drawer and Raju Gaikwad removed Rs. 7,000/ -. Nilesh Kadam also assaulted him with fists and kicks. Thereafter the detenu and his associates ran away. On seeing the above incident the witnesss servants ran away. On account of fright the witness did not report the incident to the police. 2-B. A perusal of paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention would show that the detenu has been detained as a dangerous person under the M. P. D. A. Act.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition a large number of pleas have been raised by Mr. A. P. Gupte, learned Counsel for the petitioner but as he has only pressed two pleas before us namely:- (a) the plea in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the petition which in substance is that even if the prejudicial acts, committed by the detenu, enumerated in the grounds of detention are treated to be gospel-truth they disclose violation of law and order and not public order; and (b) the in-camera statements of witnesses A, B and C are false.;