Petition Filed to Quash Detention Order Under M.P.D.A. Act in the Hon’ble Court Of Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

Zafar Khan - Akola
A petition has been filed by Adv Mir Nagman Ali seeking to quash and set aside a detention order of Sachin Mukund Balkhande dated March 30, 2024, passed by the District Magistrate/ Collector, Akola under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A. Act).
The impugned detention order references a total of nine crimes registered against the petitioner. The focus of the detention, however, is on Crime No. 662/2023, which was registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Arms Act. The crime, registered on December 4, 2023, relates to serious allegations, including physical assault, threats, and involvement of a group of individuals in the crime. While the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report (FIR) for the said crime, the authorities cited in-camera statements from witnesses to justify the detention.
Witness "A," who owns a hotel, claims that the petitioner’s companions assaulted his son, and that the petitioner personally threatened him with a knife. Another witness, "B," testified that the petitioner and his companions stopped him while he was returning home, accusing him of being a police informant and threatening him with a knife. The witness further alleges physical assault and intimidation by the petitioner.
The detention order also references earlier preventive actions, externment proceedings, and a previous detention order from September 4, 2021, which was later set aside by the High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 820/2021.
The learned counsel for petitioner Adv Mir Nagman Ali raised concerns regarding the lack of consideration for bail applications or orders in the cases referenced in the detention order. It was also highlighted that a prior externment order against the petitioner, dated February 18, 2019, had been quashed but was not included in the documents provided to the detaining authority. Furthermore, he emphasized that the petitioner was already in custody in Crime No. 662/2023, and a bail application, though rejected, does not indicate a high likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail.
On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) defended the detention, stating that the detaining authority had thoroughly examined the evidence, including in-camera witness statements, and arrived at subjective satisfaction regarding the petitioner’s involvement in illegal activities that threaten public order. The A.P.P. contended that the detaining authority had duly considered the possibility of the petitioner committing further offenses and that the detention was necessary to prevent such activities.
The case concerns Crime No. 662/2023, registered on December 4, 2023, involving multiple serious offenses, including assault and use of weapons. The crime occurred in a public place and involved the petitioner and his associates during a dispute that escalated into violence. Despite the petitioner being in custody, the detention order was passed without explicitly addressing why it was necessary, given the petitioner’s ongoing detention in the said crime.
One of the key arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner was that a prior detention order, which had been set aside by the Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 820/2021, was not presented to the detaining authority while issuing the new detention order. Although the detaining authority referenced the earlier detention, it incorrectly stated that the petitioner had been released upon completion of the detention, whereas, in fact, the order had been set aside by the Court. The petitioner's counsel also contended that the detaining authority failed to take into account relevant material, including the fact that the petitioner was already in custody at the time of the detention order.
The Court found that there was no subjective satisfaction from the detaining authority regarding the reliability of witness statements and that important documents were not provided during the decision-making process. As a result, the detention order was deemed invalid.

Share this News: