Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shamim Makmood Khan, mother of detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan, challenged a preventive detention order dated 16 October 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detention order was based on two criminal cases (C.R. No. 188/2019 and C.R. No. 208/2019) and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B'. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider the bail orders granted in both cases, indicating that the detenu was already in custody and the alleged activities did not disturb public order. Additionally, the in-camera statements were not supplied to the detenu, violating his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court found that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the bail orders, which were crucial to assess the necessity of preventive detention. The court also held that non-supply of in-camera statements was a fatal flaw. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed the release of the detenu.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Non-Application of Mind - Failure to Consider Bail Orders - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - The detaining authority failed to consider the bail orders passed in the two criminal cases relied upon, which indicated that the detenu was already in custody and had been granted bail, thereby showing that the alleged activities did not affect public order. Held that non-consideration of bail orders amounts to non-application of mind and vitiates the detention order (Paras 5-7). B) Preventive Detention - In-camera Statements - Non-Supply to Detenu - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - The in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' were not supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention, depriving him of an opportunity to make an effective representation. Held that failure to supply in-camera statements violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution and renders the detention order invalid (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preventive detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the detaining authority in not considering the bail orders and in not supplying the in-camera statements to the detenu.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 16 October 2019, and directed the release of the detenu forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- non-application of mind
- failure to consider bail orders
- in-camera statements not supplied
- MPDA Act
- dangerous person
- public order
