Bombay High Court
Nazia Yunus Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 February, 2019
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Sarang V. Kotwal
1 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3830 OF 2018
Nazia Yunus Ansari. ]
Age - 33 years, ]
R/a. Ashraf Compound, Bilal Nagar, ]
Shantinagar, Bhiwandi, District Thane. ] ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Secretary, Home Department ]
(Special), Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai - 400 032. ]
2. Param Bir Singh, ]
The Commissioner of Police, ]
Thane City, Near Kalwa Bridge, ]
Thane City - 400 601. ]
3. The Superintendent of Nashik Road ]
Central Prison, Nashik. ] ... Respondents
Mrs. A. M. Z. Ansari for Petitioner.
Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State.
CORAM :- INDRAJIT MAHANTY &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- 05 FEBRUARY, 2019
PRONOUNCED ON :- 12 FEBRUARY, 2019
URS 1 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 :::
2 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
JUDGMENT (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-
1. The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ, order or direction to release the Petitioner's husband Yunus @ Pakya Babu Ansari (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu'). The Petitioner is seeking quashing of the detention order bearing no.TC/PD/MPDA/05/2018 dated 28/06/2018 passed by the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra and the Respondent No.3 is the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison where the detenu is detained pursuant to the order of detention.
2. Along with the order of detention dated 28/06/2018, the detenu was served with the grounds of detention dated 28/06/2018. It was mentioned in those grounds that the detention order was passed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootletters, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Maharashtra Act No.LV of 1981), (Amendment-1996), URS 2 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 3 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt (Amendment-2009), (Amendment-2015) (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA'). It was mentioned in the said communication that he was a dangerous criminal and had become perpetual danger to the lives and properties of the people residing and carrying out their daily vocations in the areas within the jurisdiction of Shantinagar Police Station in Thane Commissionerate. It was mentioned, inter alia, that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, peace and tranquility in those localities. The list of various offences is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said communication formulating grounds of detention. Paragraph 4 of the said communication mentions 2 registered offences and paragraph 5 mentions 2 statements recorded in-camera of the witnesses who were not willing to come forward to give complaint against the detenu.
3. In paragraph 4(a), the detaining authority has mentioned particulars in respect of C.R.No.I-38 of 2018 registered at Shantinagar Police Station under Sections 324, 323 and 504 of IPC read with Sections 3 & 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. It is mentioned that complainant Nabeel Jamil Shaikh had given statement in I.G.M. Hospital, Bhiwandi. It is further mentioned that on 03/02/2018 at URS 3 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 4 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt 12.30 midnight, Nabil was searching for his cousin Tanjim Ismail Shaikh. He saw Tanjim in an intoxicated condition abusing the detenu. There was a quarrel, the detenu got annoyed and assaulted the Complainant and Tanjim. The detenu assaulted the complainant on his left forehead with a sharp object and on right shoulder of Tanjim with the same object. In the supplementary statement, the Complainant mentioned that during the incident, the crowd ran helter-skelter as the detenu threatened the crowd with his knife. The detenu was arrested on 17/02/2018 in connection with this offence and was released on bail on 18/02/2018.
4. Ground 4(b) gives particulars about C.R.No.II-56 of 2018 registered at the same police station under Sections 4 (25) of Indian Arms Act read with Sections 3 & 6 of Criminal Law Amendment Act read with Section 37 (1) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. In this case, the complaint was lodged by Police Naik 1899 Tushar Babdu Wade. On receiving information from the Control Room the police staff went to Babla Compound, Bhiwandi with two panchas around 9.25 p.m. on 12/03/2018. As per the information, the detenu was wielding large knife and was creating terror. The shopkeepers closed URS 4 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 5 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt their shops and the residents closed their doors. They ran helter- skelter due to fear. The detenu was then arrested. Statements of 5 witnesses were recorded during the investigation. The detenu was shown arrested on 13/03/2018 and he was released on bail on 14/03/2018.
5. The first statement recorded in-camera of witness 'A' is mentioned in paragraph 5(A) of the grounds of detention. The statement was recorded on 28/04/2018 in respect of an incident which had taken place in the second week of March 2018. This witness claimed to know the detenu. According to this witness, the detenu and his associates roamed with deadly weapons in the areas near the Babla Compound. According to him, on the day of the incident, the detenu confronted him by holding his collar and took him in a dark area nearby. The detenu removed a chopper from the waist and removed Rs.1,500/- from this witness's pocket forcibly. The passers-by ran away helter-skelter. The detenu left the place after threatening this witness. This in-camera statement was verified by ACP, East Division, Bhiwandi, on 29/05/2018.
URS 5 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 :::
6 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
6. Ground 5(B) mentions the in-camera statement of witness 'B' which was recorded on 02/05/2018 in respect of the incident which had taken place in the last week of March 2018. When this witness was going towards Sanjaynagar through Pipeline road on his motorbike, the detenu suddenly came there from below the pipeline, confronted this witness, removed a country-made revolver from the waist and threatened this witness. The detenu forcibly took Rs.2,500/- from him. The people nearby ran away due to fear. This in-camera statement was verified by ACP, East Division, Bhiwandi, on 29/05/2018.
7. After giving particulars about these incidents, the Respondent No.2 recorded his subjective satisfaction that the detenu was a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA and observed that it was necessary to detain him under MPDA. The detenu was informed of his right to make representation to the authorities, including the Advisory Board.
8. In response to the Petition filed by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 filed his Affidavit-in-Reply. On behalf of the URS 6 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 7 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), the Deputy Secretary (In-charge) filed his Affidavit-in-Reply. From the Affidavit, it appears that the detenu was actually detained on 28/06/2018. The Respondent No.2 had reported the detention order to the Government. The Government had received report on 29/06/2018. The Government had approved the detention on 30/06/2018. The Advisory Board report was issued by the Government on 16/07/2018 and the order was confirmed on 17/07/2018.
9. We have heard Mrs. A. M. Z. Ansari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for State.
10. Mrs. Ansari challenged the detention order by making submissions on 4 grounds :
(i) Important documents were not placed before the Respondent No.2 and therefore, its subjective satisfaction was not proper, thereby vitiating the detention order,
(ii) There was delay in passing the detention order vis-a-vis the period of activities, URS 7 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 8 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
(iii) The activities attributed to the detenu did not affect public order and therefore, the detention order was not necessary, and
(iv) The detention order was passed by the Respondent No.2 hurriedly without applying his mind.
11. Mrs. Ansari made submissions in respect of the important documents having not been placed before the Respondent No.2. In ground (iii)(a) and (iii)(b) of her grounds in the memo of Petition, the Petitioner has elaborated on these grounds of challenge. Mrs.Ansari submitted that C.R.No.I-38 of 2018 shows that two persons were injured. One was the first informant and the other was his cousin Tanjim. The Petitioner has taken a ground in the instant Petition that the detaining authority has relied on a copy of the injury certificate of said Tanjim to come to the conclusion that the detenu had caused injury to Tanjim by means of a sharp weapon. However, such medical certificate was not furnished to the detenu and therefore, his right to make effective representation was infringed. Ground (iii)(b) in the memo of Petition further mentions that if such medical certificate was not placed before the detaining authority, his URS 8 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 9 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt order suffers from non-application of mind as his subjective satisfaction would then be malafide, null and void. In response to this challenge made by the Petitioner, in paragraph 9 of the Affidavit-in- Reply filed by the Respondent No.2, it is mentioned that the detaining authority had not relied on the injury certificate of the said Tanjim and therefore, it was not necessary to furnish a copy of the same to the detenu and therefore, the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make effective representation was not infringed. The Respondent No.2 has further averred in his Affidavit that, while narrating the fact of C.R.No.I-38 of 2018 registered with Shantinagar Police Station, Bhiwandi; passing reference of the injuries to Tanjim was made. It was further averred that the said certificate was not a vital document.
12. In support of her contention, Mrs. Ansari relied on the Judgment in the case of Ayya alias Ayub Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 364. It was held in the said case that there would be vitiation of the detention on grounds of non- application of mind if a piece of evidence, which was relevant though not binding, had not been considered at all. If a piece of evidence URS 9 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 10 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt which might reasonably have affected the decision of passing an order of detention, was excluded from consideration, there would be failure of application of mind which, in turn, vitiated the detention. The omission to consider such material was important. In Ayya's case (supra), the telegram mentioning the date and time of arrest of the Petitioner was not placed before the detaining authority. In the facts of that case, it was held to be a vital document, non-placement of which before the detaining authority was held to be fatal to the passing of the detention order.
13. Mrs. Ansari then relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kulsum Mohd. Faimid Qureshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Writ Petition No.1766 of 2006, decided on 23/04/2007. In that case, there was material inconsistency in the statements of witnesses and the medical certificate and it was held that it showed non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and the detention order was set aside.
14. Mrs. Ansari then relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Narahari Bhanage Vs. The Union of India & URS 10 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 11 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt Ors. - Criminal Writ Petition No.3 of 1984, decided on 03/04/1984. In that case, the Petitioner was arrested by the Customs authorities. Allegedly, he had given confessions on 7th, 8th and 9th March, 1983 but he subsequently retracted them. It was his case that he was beaten by the Customs Officers and therefore, he was retracting the confessions. In his case, this Court had held that the medical certificate showing his injury was an important piece of document which was necessary to be taken into consideration to see whether his retraction was voluntary. The detaining authority had not taken into consideration his medical certificate and therefore, the detention order was set aside.
15. Mrs. Mhatre, learned APP for State, on the other hand, submitted that the injury certificate of Tanjim was not a relevant document at all. His injuries were mentioned in the grounds of detention because the first informant had made reference to them. Mrs. Mhatre relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Shadab Siddiq Khan Vs. A. N. Roy, Commissioner of Police, Gr. Bombay & Ors. reported in 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 475. In that case, the detenu had allegedly caused grievous injury to the victim. In the URS 11 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 12 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt grounds of detention, it was mentioned that the detenu had caused grievous injury to the victim. It was argued that there were no conclusive medico-legal documents showing the grievous injury suffered by the victim and therefore, there was non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. In the said case, the charge against the detenu was under Section 325 of the IPC. The contention that it was essential to supply X-Ray report to indicate that the Complainant had suffered grievous hurt, was not accepted because the victim having suffered grievous hurt, was clearly indicated in the remand application and the copy thereof was supplied to the detenu.
16. Analysis of these Judgments shows that in Ayya's case (supra), the telegram was held to be a vital document in the facts of that case because the timing of the arrest of the detenu in that particular offence was important. In Kulsum's case (supra), there was a discrepancy between the statements and the medical certificate. It was not a case where the medical certificate of the victim was not considered and in Prabhakar's case (supra), the medical certificate of the detenu himself was important to consider the question as to whether his retraction of inculpatory statement was genuine or not.
URS 12 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 :::
13 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
Therefore, in our considered view, none of these cases are applicable to the instant case before us. On the other hand, in Shadab Khan's Judgment (supra) referred to by the learned APP Mrs. Mhatre, this Court has held that nature of the injury mentioned in the remand application could be taken into consideration by the detaining authority. In the instant case before us, the compilation of documents which were furnished to the detenu, was produced before us. In this compilation, there is a remand report dated 08/05/2018 in respect of arrest of the detenu in connection with C.R.No.I-38 of 2018 wherein there is a reference to the injury suffered by Tanjim. Hence, Shadab Khan's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The said remand report was before the detaining authority and the copy of the same was supplied to the detenu. Moreover, in the grounds of detention, in paragraph 4(a), the injury suffered by Tanjim was mentioned while narrating the statement given by the first informant Nabeel Shaikh and the injury to Tanjim was mentioned during the course of such narration. Therefore, we accept the stand taken by the Respondent No.2 in his Affidavit that there was a passing reference to the injury suffered by Tanjim and his medical certificate was not a vital document. Therefore, we do not find any substance in URS 13 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 14 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt the first submission of Mrs. Ansari that the medical certificate of Tanjim was a vital document, the detaining authority had not taken it into consideration neither a copy of it was supplied to the detenu and therefore, the detention order was vitiated.
17. Mrs. Ansari then submitted that there was a delay in passing the detention order. It is her contention that the detenu was released on bail on 14/03/2018 and the detention order was passed on 28/06/2018 and hence passing of the detention order was not warranted at all. The live link between the last offence and the passing of the detention order was snapped. It was her further submission that there was delay in initiating and processing the proposal. There was inertia on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order and even after the proposal was initiated, there is an inordinate delay in passing the detention order. To this contention and ground of challenge, the detaining authority has mentioned a few dates in his Affidavit, as follows :-
(i) C.R.No.I-38 of 2018 was registered on 03/02/2018. The detenu was arrested on 17/02/2018 and was released on bail on 18/02/2018.
URS 14 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 :::
15 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
(ii) C.R.No.II-56 of 2018 was pertaining to the incident dated
13/03/2018. The detenu was arrested on the same day and was released on 14/03/2018.
(iii) The in-camera statement of Witness 'A' was recorded on 28/04/2018.
(iv) The in-camera statement of Witness 'B' was recorded on 02/05/2018.
These two in-camera statements pertain to the two incidents having taken place in the second week of March 2018 and the last week of March 2018 respectively.
(v) The proposal for detention was submitted on 23/05/2018.
It was first submitted to the ACP, Bhiwandi Division, District Thane, who gave his endorsement on 29/05/2018.
Then the papers were forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Bhiwandi, who, after going through the papers, gave his endorsement on 29/05/2018. Thereafter, the papers were forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region, Thane, on 01/06/2018 who gave his endorsement on 05/06/2018. Thereafter, the detaining authority i.e. URS 15 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 16 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt Respondent No.2 formed his opinion that it was a fit case for detaining the detenu and therefore, the proposal was handed over to MPDA Cell, Crime Branch, Thane, on 07/06/2018. The Respondent No.2 gave his approval on 19/06/2018 to the proposal after receiving a noting from the said Cell and finally the order of detention was passed on 28/06/2018. In the meantime, necessary documentation was made.
18. Mrs. Ansari relied on the case of Austin William Luis Pinto Vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai & Ors. reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 28. In that case, the statements of witnesses were recorded on 12/07/2003 and 14/07/2003 after the detenu had availed of the bail facility on 02/07/2003. There was no explanation offered as to why the in-camera statements were not recorded when the detenu was in custody from 01/05/2003 to 02/07/2003. In addition to this aspect, it was observed that the proposal was submitted on 26/07/2003 and the detention order was passed on 30/09/2003. All this delay was held to be fatal to the detention order and it was quashed. Mrs. Ansari further relied on the Judgment of URS 16 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 17 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt this Court in the case of Shekhar Bhalchandra Satam Vs. Shri A. N. Roy & Ors. - Criminal Writ Petition No.1322 of 2006, decided on 13th February, 2007. In that case, the detenu had availed of the bail order on 07/11/2005. Thereafter, the in-camera statement was recorded on 27/02/2006 and the detention order was passed on 27/03/2006. In this case, Austin's case (supra) was relied on and the order of detention was quashed.
19. As against this, learned APP Mrs. Mhatre relied on the case of Shri Nagnarayan Saryu Singh Vs. Shri A. N. Roy & Ors. reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2147. In this case, the detenu was released on bail on 29/01/2005. This Court considered the ratio of Austin's case (supra) and yet came to the conclusion that the witnesses could come forward only after assurances of protection were given to them and therefore, such explanation was accepted by the Court and the detention order in Nagnarayan's case (supra) was upheld.
20. We have considered the ratio and facts in these cases. In the case of Austin (supra), there was no explanation as to why the in- camera statements were not recorded though the detenu was in URS 17 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 18 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt custody for a prolonged period from 01/05/2003 to 02/07/2003. In that case, since the detenu was in custody, it would have been easier for the sponsoring authority to get hold of such witnesses who were afraid of the detenu's activities. Shekhar Satam's case (supra) again makes of reference of Austin's case (supra). On the other hand, we find that Nagnarayan's case (supra) has taken into consideration Austin's case (supra). In Nagnarayan's case (supra), the detenu was released on bail on 29/01/2005 and the in-camera statements were recorded after about four months and the Court had accepted the explanation offered by the detaining authority in that case. In the instant case before us also, the Respondent No.2 has explained that the in-camera statements of the witnesses could be recorded only after giving them assurances about their safety. Thus, in our opinion, Nagnarayan's case (supra) covers the facts of the instant case before us and we do not find that there was any delay in initiating the proposal against the detenu since his last activity.
21. The Respondent No.2 has given various dates on which the proposal was initiated and was forwarded to various authorities for their opinion. We find that the time spent in such exercise was URS 18 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 19 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt reasonable and the movement of the proposal through various authorities is properly explained in the Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2. After the Respondent No.2 had received the proposal, he had not acted lethargically. The time taken by him was quite reasonable considering the volume of documents placed before him. He had to apply his mind and pass his order and in our considered view, he has done that exercise diligently and we do not find that the order of detention is vitiated on the ground of delay in passing the order.
22. Mrs. Ansari thereafter submitted that none of the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention affect the public order and therefore, the detention order was not necessary. The approach of the detaining authority in passing the detention order in respect of these incidents not affecting the public order shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Mrs. Ansari, in support of her submissions, relied on a few Judgments. These are :-
(i) Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Another, reported in 1989 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 438, URS 19 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 20 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
(ii) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M. M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and Others, reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 237,
(iii) Darpan Kumar Sharma Alias Dharban Kumar Sharma Vs. State of T. N. and Others, reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 537,
(iv) Munagala Yadamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 386, and
(v) Smt. Halima Abdul Ahad Shaikh Vs. Shri A. N. Roy, Commissioner of Police & Ors., reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2333.
23. In the case of Piyush Mehta (supra), the detenu was detained under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 for his bootlegging activities. The nature of the allegations against the said detenu Piyush Mehta and the allegations against the detenu before us are materially different and therefore, the ratio of Piyush Mehta's case (supra) will not be attracted in the present case. Similarly, in the case of Munagala Yadamma (supra), he was detained URS 20 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 21 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt for his activities in respect of cases involving violation of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 involving illicit distillation of liquor. In that case, it was held that the offences against him were of a nature which could be dealt with under the ordinary law of land. Even this case differs from the facts of case before us. In Mustakmiya's case (supra), it was observed that the incident against the detenu in that case involved offences against single individual having no adverse effect prejudicial to the maintenance of public order disturbing the even tempo of life or peace and tranquility of the locality. Such casual and isolated incidents were not considered sufficient to have implications affecting even tempo of life. It was observed that the act by itself was not determinant of its own gravity but it was the potentiality of the act which mattered. Applying this principle, we will have to test whether the incidents mentioned in the present detention order show that the public order is adversely affected. In the case of Darpan Kumar Sharma (supra) again, it was observed that a single incident of robbery involving the detenu could not be said to have disturbed the even tempo of life.
URS 21 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 :::
22 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
24. Applying principles of the above cases, it can be seen that C.R.No.I-38 of 2018 mentioned in ground 4(a) does not affect the public order. The incident had taken place after midnight. It was a result of dispute between the first informant and his cousin on one hand and the detenu on the other. It did not involve pubic in general and therefore, public order was not affected.
25. Insofar as ground 4(b) is concerned, the case against the detenu was that in the night of 12/03/2018 around 9.30 p.m., the detenu was moving in the area brandishing sword and threatening the citizens in that area. The shopkeepers closed their shops. The residents and the shopkeepers ran away due to fear. The description of this incident definitely shows that the public in general were affected because of the activities and the threats issued by the detenu. There are two independent witnesses from the locality whose statements are contained in the documents placed before the detaining authority and supplied to the detenu.
26. The in-camera statement of witness 'A' shows that in second week of March 2018, the detenu took this witness in a dark URS 22 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 23 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt area and extorted Rs.1,500/- from him by threatening him with a chopper. Similarly, witness 'B' has stated that in the last week of March 201, the detenu forcibly took Rs.2,500/- from him by showing revolver. This incident occurred under the pipeline at Bilal Compound. Both these incidents cannot be termed as isolated incidents. The nature of offences of extortion of money at the point of deadly weapons does not indicate that it was a private dispute. In fact, these incidents show that the detenu was committing these offences one after the other which definitely affected public order. Mrs.Ansari invited our attention to the in-camera statements where these witnesses 'A' and 'B' have stated that they do not have any complaint against the detenu. However, these isolated assertions will have to be read in the context of their entire statements. These statements show that the residents of the locality were not willing to come forward to give complaint against the detenu because of the fear factor created by him. Even these two witnesses had not made any complaint out of fear created by the detenu. In these two incidents also, the people around the locality ran away due to fear. In that context, it cannot be said that these witnesses had no complaint against the detenu. Thus, in our considered view, the material against URS 23 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 ::: 24 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt the detenu does point out the activities affecting public order adversely. Therefore, we do not find fault with the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in that behalf.
27. Mrs. Ansari lastly submitted that the detention order was passed by the detaining authority hurriedly. She submitted that considering the volume of documents, the detaining authority had to peruse, it necessitated some reasonable time for application of mind. According to Mrs.Ansari, the detaining authority mechanically and in a very short span of time from receiving the papers, passed the order. We do not find any force in this submission. We have already referred to the dates mentioned in the Affidavit of the detaining authority as to how the proposal was processed. On one hand, Mrs.Ansari submitted that there was delay in passing the order and on the other, she submitted that the order was passed hurriedly. Both these submissions, obviously, cannot go together. However, we do not find force in either of these submissions. Every step taken by the detaining authority and his subordinate officers till passing of the detention order is satisfactorily explained in the detaining authority's Affidavit.
URS 24 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 :::
25 WP 3830-18 Judgment.odt
28. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to quash and set side the order. With the result, the Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
29. The Rule is discharged.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)
URS 25 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 01:23:51 :::