B. H. Marlapalle, J. - (1.) This Petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of detention dated 31st October, 2005 passed under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short "MPDA Act") passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The said order was served on detenu on 2nd November,2005 when he was already under arrest in connection with C.R.No.67 of 2005 registered with the V.P.Road, Police Station at Mumbai and the detention period would therefore expired on 1st November,2006.
(2.) Though various grounds have been taken in the Petition to challenge the said order, the following two grounds have been emphasized before us :- a) The Petitioner came to be arrested in connection with C.R.No.67 of 2005 on 19th September,2005 and the bail application submitted by him before the learned Sessions Judge (Court No.18), came to be withdrawn on 24th October,2005. The impugned order is passed within one week from the withdrawal of the said application and therefore, it was not justified either on the basis of law or on the facts and circumstances. More particularly, when the Petitioner was claimed to be a dangerous person and within the meaning of Section 2(b)(1) of the MPDA Act. b) Apart from C.R.No.67 of 2005, two in-camera statements recorded on 4th October,2005 and 3rd October,2005. The first in-camera statement disclosed the alleged offence that had taken place in second week of May,2005 and 2nd in-camera statement, the alleged offence is disclosed to have taken place in the 3rd week of May,2005 and the detention order is passed on 31st October,2005. There is no potentiality or propensity between these alleged acts in May,2005 and the date of detention order i.e. 31st October, 2005.
(3.) Coming to the first ground, it is clear from the reasons recorded in the affidavit enclosed with the impugned order that the Respondent No.1 was aware about the fact that the detenu had withdrawn the bail application submitted before the Sessions Court. It is further stated in the grounds for detention as under :- "I have carefully gone through the material placed before me and I am subjectively satisfied that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. I am aware that you have not been granted bail in V.P.Road Police Cell, Lodhoy Colony, New Delhi, F.I.R.No.86 of 2005 but you have not availed of the bail facility in this case. You are in judicial custody in both cases. However, you may be granted bail in V.P.Road Police Station C.R.No.67 of 2005 under the normal law of land in due course. In view of your tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by you as stated above, I am further satisfied that after availing the bail facility and being at large, being a criminal, you are likely to revert to the similar criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and that it is necessary to detain you under the MPDA Act to prevent you from acting in such a prejudicial manner in future.";