Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Lack of Proximity Between Offences and Public Order. Single Criminal Case and In-Camera Statements Held Insufficient to Establish Threat to Public Order Under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act.

A) Preventive Detention - Dangerous Person - Public Order vs. Law and Order - Section 3(2) read with Section 2(b-1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Vedio Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) - The detention order was based on a single criminal case under Sections 307, 326, 143, 147, 149 IPC and Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act, and two in-camera statements. The Court held that the alleged acts affected only 'law and order' and not 'public order', as there was no evidence of a grave or widespread disturbance affecting the community at large. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not supported by material showing a nexus between the activities and public order. (Paras 5-8)

B) Preventive Detention - In-Camera Statements - Credibility and Proximity - Section 3(2) MPDA Act - The in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' recorded on 09.12.2018 and 10.12.2018 were found to be vague and lacking in detail. The Court noted that the statements did not indicate any imminent threat to public order, and the detenu was already on bail. The Court held that the statements could not form the basis for preventive detention as they did not establish a continuous or repetitive pattern of dangerous activity. (Paras 5-8)

C) Preventive Detention - Single Incident - Insufficient Grounds - Section 3(2) MPDA Act - The Court held that a solitary incident of crime, even if serious, cannot justify preventive detention unless it has a propensity to disturb public order. The detenu's involvement in a single criminal case, where he was granted bail, did not demonstrate that he was a 'dangerous person' whose activities were prejudicial to public order. The detention order was quashed. (Paras 5-8)

Whether the detention order passed under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, 1981, based on a single criminal case and two in-camera statements, is valid when the alleged activities affect 'law and order' but not 'public order'.

• Preventive detention
• dangerous person
• public order
• law and order
• subjective satisfaction
• proximity
• MPDA Act
• Section 3(2)
• Section 2(b-1)
• in-camera statements
• bail
• single incident