Shubham Rajendra Hingade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 8248 Bom

1/20                                                             CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2021

Mr.Shubham Rajendra Hingade
Age - 28 years, Occupation-Social Service,
R/at : Flat No. 803, Vaidya Bunglow,
Naman Society, Gnyaneshwar Paduka Chowk,
Pune 411 005.                                           ....Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra
through Secretary, Home Ministry
(Summons to be served upon
Office of Government Pleader,
High Court, Mumbai)
2. Commissioner of Police, Pune City
Having address at :
Police Commissioner office,
Sadhu Waswani Chowk, Pune                               ... Respondents

                                ****
Mr.Kapil Rathor for petitioner.
Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for respondents.

                                        ****
                                 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
                                             N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

Reserved for Judgment on : 10th June 2021.

Judgment Pronounced on : 22nd June 2021.

JUDGMENT : (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent

of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order of detention,

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

2/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

dated 20th November 2020, passed against the petitioner by the

Commissioner of Police, Pune City, under section 3(2) of the

Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,

Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates,

Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of

Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA

Act, 1981").

3. The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts :

(i) The petitioner claims to be a Social Worker.

Certain crimes have been registered against the

petitioner out of political rivalry.

(ii) Two of the offences, which have been taken

into account by the Detaining Authority, are

registered with Chaturshringi Police Station, Pune

City. In C.R.No. 931 of 2021, registered for the

offences punishable under sections 326, 323, 504,

506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

('The Penal Code'), section 4(25) of Arms Act,

1959, and section 37(1) read with 135 of

Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the petitioner, in

furtherance of his common intention with the co-

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

3/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

accused, allegedly caused grievous hurt to Yogesh

Naik by means of a deadly weapon on 9 th June

2020. The petitioner was arrested in the said

crime on 10th June 2020 and was released on bail

on the very same day. In crime No.1076 of 2020,

registered for the offences punishable under

sections 324, 504, 506 and 427 read with 34 of

the Penal Code, section 4(25) of Arms Act, 1959,

and section 37(1) read with 135 of Maharashtra

Police Act, 1951, the petitioner, in furtherance of

his common intention with the co-accused,

allegedly assaulted Mr.Akash Suresh Pawar by

means of dangerous weapon. The petitioner was

arrested on 12th July 2020 and released on bail on

the very same day.

(iii) In the backdrop of the violent and

dangerous acts and conduct on the part of the

petitioner, over a period of time, an enquiry was

conducted. It transpired that the petitioner along

with his associates has been committing offences

under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Penal Code,

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

4/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

armed with deadly weapons. The petitioner has

thus become a perpetual danger to the lives and

properties of the people residing within the local

limits of Chaturshringi Police Station, Pune City.

The inquiry revealed that nobody was coming

forward to lodge complaint and depose against

the petitioner due to fear of retaliation. During

the course of enquiry, in-camera statements of two

witnesses were recorded.

(iv) The Detaining Authority, after considering

the aforesaid material, was of the view that it was

necessary to detain the petitioner by invoking the

provisions contained in section 3 of the MPDA

Act, 1981 in order to prevent him from acting in

any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order. Thus, the impugned detention order

was passed on 20th November 2020.

(v) The State Government approved the order

of detention on 24th November 2020. The

Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

5/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

cause for the continued detention of the detenu.

Thereupon, by order dated 10th December 2020,

the State Government confirmed the detention

order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune

and further directed the detention of the

petitioner to be continued for one year from the

date of detention. Hence, this petition.

4. The petitioner has taken exception to the impugned

order of detention on the following principal, amongst the other,

grounds :-

"......

(iv) Petitioner submits that, the three F.I.Rs cited in the record and proceedings of the detention order, ex facie does not satisfy the essential ingredients of MPDA Act to implicate present Petitioner.

(v) That, Petitioner's detention is caused with ulterior motive and malafide intentions due to local political rivalry and political pressure on Respondent No.2.

(vi) Petitioner states that, since the day of detention no opportunity for challenging the unlawful detention is being given to Petitioner, Respondent No.1 intentionally delaying the hearing and thereby curtailed the personal liberty of the Petitioner.

.....

(viii) Thus, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 hand in hands violating the fundamental rights and liberty of the Petitioner, by intentionally delaying the proceedings."

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

6/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

5. An affidavit in reply is filed by respondent No.2-the

Detaining Authority. The respondent No.2 has endeavoured to

justify the impugned order on the count that the subjective

satisfaction arrived at by the respondent No.2 to pass the order of

detention under section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, 1981 was based on

cogent and relevant material. The challenge to the impugned order,

therefore, was stated to be unsustainable. An affidavit in reply is

also filed on behalf of the State Government-Respondent No.1 to

demonstrate the scrupulous compliance of statutory requirements.

6. We have heard Mr. Kapil Rathor, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.J.P. Yagnik, the learned APP for the respondents.

With the assistance of the learned counsels, we have also perused

the material on record.

7. Mr. Rathor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the material which has been relied upon by the Detaining

Authority, as is evident from the grounds of detention furnished to

the petitioner, does not justify the impugned order of detention.

Taking the Court through the grounds of detention, especially in

the context of Crime Nos.931 of 2020 and 1076 of 2020 registered

against the petitioner at Chaturshringi Police Station and

comparing the same with the copies of the first information reports

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

7/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

in those crimes, Mr. Rathor made an earnest endeavour to draw

home the point that the first information reports nowhere disclose

that the petitioner had allegedly used the weapons which would

warrant application of the provisions contained in section 326 of

the Penal Code and the Arms Act, 1959. Mr. Rathor would further

urge that the allegations against the petitioner, even if taken at par,

would reveal that the offences were not serious and, in any event,

the incidents arose out of personal animosity. The acts and conduct

attributed to the petitioner, according to Mr.Rathor, by no stretch of

imagination, can be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order. The impugned order thus suffers from the vice of non-

application of mind. The personal liberty of the petitioner has been

trampled upon on the basis of unsustainable grounds, urged Mr.

Rathor.

8. As against this, Mr. Yagnik, learned APP, stoutly supported the

impugned order. First and foremost, it was urged that the grounds

on which the impugned order is challenged (extracted above), are

vague and general. The petitioner has neither made out a case of

non-compliance of the statutory requirements nor of non-

application of mind. In the totality of the circumstances, according

to Mr.Yagnik, in the light of the antecedents of the petitioner, as

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

8/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

reflected from the grounds of detention, the subjective satisfaction

arrived at by respondent No.2 cannot be faulted at. A continual

course of dangerous and violent acts by the petitioner had

endangered the even tempo of lives of the persons residing within

the limits of Chaturshringi Police Station and, therefore, the

respondent No.2 was well within his rights in exercising the power

to detain the petitioner under section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, 1981,

urged Mr. Yagnik.

9. We have given our anxious consideration to the aforesaid

submissions.

10. To begin with, there can be no duality of opinion that the

personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized

right guaranteed under the Constitution. Though the State is

empowered to put restraint on personal liberty, under the laws of

preventive detention, the exercise of power must be in conformity

with the provisions of law with meticulous compliance of the

procedural safeguards. The authority empowered to detain a

person must record a subjective satisfaction, based on a proper

appreciation of the material placed before it, that the acts and

conduct attributed to the proposed detenu are prejudicial to the

society and fall within the mischief of the provisions which

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

9/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

empower the detention. The provisions contained in the

enactments which authorize preventive detention cannot be

resorted to as an easy substitute to deal with an ordinary law and

order problem.

11. Section 3 of MPDA Act, 1981 empowers the State

Government and also empowered Officers to detain any person

with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is trite that,

"public order" and "law and order" are different concepts and have

distinct juridical connotations. Only those acts which are prejudicial

to the maintenance of public order, furnish a legitimate basis for

preventive detention.

12. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to note the relevant

provisions contained in the MPDA, Act, 1981 under which the

Detaining Authority passed the impugned order. The Act defines

'dangerous person' as under :-

"2...........

(b-1) "dangerous person" means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959."

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

10/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

Under clause (a) of section 2, in the context of a dangerous

person, "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order", means-

"(iv) in the case of a dangerous person, when he is engaged, or is making preparation for engaging, in any of his activities as a dangerous person, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order."

The explanation appended to clause (a) of section 2 further

clarifies the import of 'public order', for the purpose of the said

clause, which reads as under :

"Explanation--For the purpose of this clause (a), public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health; [or disturbs in public safety and tranquility or disturbs the day to day life of the community by black-marketing in the essential commodities which is resulting in the artificial scarcity in the supply of such commodities and rises in the prices of essential commodities which ultimately causes inflation][or disturbs the life of the community by producing and distributing pirated copies of music or film products, thereby resulting in a loss of confidence in administrations.]."

13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid provisions, it may be

apposite to first consider the distinction between the concepts of

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

11/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

"public order" and "law and order". Public order is something more

than ordinary maintenance of law and order. A proper test to

distinguish between "law and order" and "public order" is whether

the complained acts led to disturbance of the ordinary tempo of life

of the community so as to amount a disturbance of the public order

or it merely affected an individual leaving the tranquility of society

undisturbed. It is, therefore, said that the essential distinction

between the concepts of "public order" and "law and order" is not

in the nature or quality of the act but in the degree, potentiality

and extent of its reach upon society. The given act by itself may not

be determinant of its own gravity. It is the propensity and

potentiality of the act of disturbing the even tempo of life of the

community that renders it as prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order.

14. The aforesaid distinction has been enunciated in a catena of

decisions. In our view, it may be appropriate to make a useful

reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Harpreet Kaur (Mrs.) Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State Of Maharashtra

And Another 1, wherein, in the context of the provisions of MPDA

Act, 1981, the Supreme Court expounded the distinguishing

features, in following words :

1 (1992) 2 SCC 177

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS





 12/20                                                                      CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

"18. From the law laid by this Court, as noticed above, it follows that it is the degree and extent of the reach of the objectionable activity upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of 'law and order' or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to 'public order'. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. Whenever an order of detention is questioned, the courts apply these tests to find out whether the objectionable activities upon which the order of detention is grounded fall under the classification of being prejudicial to 'public order' or belong to the category of being prejudicial only to 'law and order'. An order of detention under the Act would be valid if the activities of a detenu affect 'public order' but would not be so where the same affect only the maintenance of 'law and order'. Facts of each case have, therefore, to be carefully scrutinised to test the validity of an order of detention."

(emphasis supplied)

15. After adverting to the provisions contained in section 2(a)

[as it stood then], the Supreme Court observed that the explanation

to section 2(a) incorporates a legal fiction as to the adverse effect

on 'public order'. They read as under :-

"28. The explanation to Section 2(a) (supra) brings into effect a legal fiction as to the adverse effect on 'public order'. It provides that if any of the activities of a person referred to in clauses (i)-(iii) of Section 2(a) directly or indirectly causes or is calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or a widespread danger to life or public health, then public order shall be deemed to have been adversely affected. Thus, it is the fall-out of the activity of the "bootlegger" which determines whether 'public order' has been affected within the meaning of this deeming provision or not. This legislative intent has to be kept in view while dealing with detentions under the Act."

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

13/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid enunciation of the legal

position, we re-advert to the consideration of the pivotal question

as to whether the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining

Authority, that the acts and conduct attributed to the petitioner

warranted his detention by invoking the provisions contained in

section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, 1981 on the premise that those acts

were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is sustainable?

For an answer, it is necessary to consider the material which

weighed with the Detaining Authority. The relevant part of the

grounds of detention, furnished to the petitioner, bears upon the

controversy. It reads as under :

"4 Recently, your involvement is noticed in the following offences which are of serious nature and are suggestive of your violent tendencies and inclinations to perpetuate your criminal activities as a 'Dangerous Person'. This criminal activities of yours are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in section 2(a)(iv) of the act and hence, I, being the Detaining Authority, have relied mainly upon the same while passing the order of detention. I have considered following two offences mentioned below at para No.5.1 and 5.2 and two in- camera statements mentioned in para no. 6.1 and 6.2 to issue this detention order. The relevant documents regarding the investigation of these offences are enclosed herewith in order to enable you to make an effective representation.

Offences Considerable for Passing Detention Order

Sr. Police Station C.R. No. Sections of law Date & Date and Status No. time of time of registra- arrest tion

1. Chaturshringi 931/ U/s 326, 323, 504, 09/09/ 10/06/20 Court 2020 506 of I.P.C. Arms 2020 20 15.40 Pending

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

14/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

Act-1959; Arms Act 07.00 hrs. hrs. 4(25), 37(1)/135 of M.P. Act

2. Chaturshringi 1076/ U/s. 324, 504, 506, 12/07/ 28/07/20 Court 2020 427, 34 of I.P.C. 2020 20 at Pending Arms Act-1959; at 11.49 13.10 hrs. 4(25), hrs. 37(1)(3)/135 of M.P. Act.

3. Chaturshringi 1089/2 U/s. 326, 323, 34 14/07/202 26/07/20 020 of I.P.C. Arms Act- 0 at 01.08 20at 18.00 1959; 4(45), 37(1) hrs. hrs. (3)/135 of M.P. Act.

"5 Particulars of Offences Considered for Passing Detention Order as below :-

5.1 Chaturshinghi Police Station, Pune C.R. No. 931/2020 U/s 326, 323, 504, 506 of IPC Arms Act-1959; Arms Act 4(25), 37(1)/ 135 of M.P. Act.

Shri Yogesh Ramchandra Naik, age - 21 years, r/o Sr. No.211, beside Shankar temple, Khairewadi, Pune is the complainant of the said offence.

On 08/06/2020 at about 10.00 hrs. the complainant along with his friends Rahul Admane, Rohit Shandge, Aditya Kalapkar were walking from Khairewadi towards Esquire, Ganeshkhind road. The complainant and his friends came near Vijay Housing Society, three of his friends were walking in front and the complainant was walking behind them. Suddenly you along with your accomplices came on four two wheeler and stood in front of the complainant and assaulted him with the back side of koita and his shoulder, hand and his head. Your accomplices also holding Koita in their hand started assaulting the complainant, he started yelling for help to his friends. As soon as the friends of the complainant saw the incident, they started pelting stones towards you and your accomplices, you then fled from the spot along with your accomplices on two wheeler. Accordingly, on the complaint of the complainant, the offence was registered against you and your accomplices at Chaturshingi Police Station, Pune on 09/06/2020 at 07.00 hrs..........................

5.2 Chaturshingi Police Station, Pune C.R. No.1076/2020 U/s 324, 323, 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C. Arms Act-1959; 4(25), 37(1)(3)/135 of M.P. Act.

Akash Suresh Pawar, age - 25 years, r/o Wadarwadi, in front of block no. 51, behind Homibhabha Hospital, Pune is the complainant in the said offence.

On 11/07/2020, the complainant was talking with his friend Pravin Shalke in front of Bhaba Hospital, Wadarwadi, Pune,

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

15/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

person namely Jayesh Lokhande who had disputed with Pravin Shalke along with you and Nikhil Kusalkar, age 20 and Shubham Sarode, age 28 with a conspiracy came there on your motorcycle, complainant's friend Pravin Shalke ran away from the spot. Since you and your accomplices saw complainant talking to Pravin Shalke, you came near complainant and asked him "cksy , xkaMw] izfo.;k dk iGkyk" as the complainant replied, "I don't know", you started slapping on his face and your accomplices using bad words got him down and started blowing fists and kicks. Your accomplices Jayesh Lokhande and Shubham Sarode removed a shart koita like weapon and were raising in the air. The complainant was begging to leave him. Your accomplice Shubham Sarode assaulted complainant's head with the back side of the koita like weapon and injured him. You with a stick hit the complainant on his legs and back, at that time your accomplices Nikhil Kusalkar age 20 started kicking him in his stomach. Jayesh Lokhande said if they again see complainant, Jayesh Lokhande came in front and raising the koita like weapon in air said " cksy dks.khgh iq<s vkyk rj rqdMs d#u Vkdhu] pyk xqipwi fu?kk vk;?kkY;kauks " and ran towards them to create terror, the people ran helter skelter to save their lives. Person namely Ajay Vitkar begged you to leave him, but you and your accomplices assaulted him with kicks and blows. Accordingly, on the complaint of the complainant, an offence was registered against you at Chaturshingi Police Station, Pune on 12/07/2020 at 11.49 hrs."

(emphasis supplied)

17. Evidently, the Detaining Authority has professedly taken into

account the two offences registered against the petitioner, namely

C.R. Nos. 931 of 2020 and 1076 of 2020 at Chaturshringi Police

Station, Pune City and in-camera statements of two witnesses. The

question which wrenches to the fore is whether the aforesaid

material, especially the role attributed to the petitioner in the

aforesaid offences, which allegedly affected public order, is borne

out by the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1963 ('Cr.P.C.'), in the case of C.R. No. 931 of 2020, and

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

16/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

the F.I.R. in the case of, C.R. No.1076 of 2020, copies of which were

also furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention.

18. From the perusal of the aforesaid narration in respect of C.R.

No. 931 of 2020, the Detaining Authority has imputed the

petitioner the role of having accosted the first informant therein,

Mr. Yogesh Naik, and assaulted him with the blunt side of sickle

(Koyta). We have perused the first information report lodged by Mr.

Yogesh Naik on 9th June 2020. In the said report, the first informant

Yogesh Naik alleged that he had known one Mahesh Hingade. On

the day of occurrence, Mahesh Hingade had accosted him along

with 4 to 5 unknown associates. Mahesh Hingade had assaulted

him by means of the blunt side of the sickle on his shoulders and

hands. The unknown associates of Mahesh Hingade also started

assaulting him by means of sickle. Evidently, the petitioner was not

named as the assailant initially. It transpired that the name of the

petitioner as an associate of Mahesh Hingade was disclosed in the

statements of the witnesses recorded on 13 th June 2020. It is

imperative to note that the witnesses have, however, refrained from

attributing the role of assault to the petitioner. At best, the

witnesses have stated that the associates of Mahesh Hingade were

assaulting the first informant by fist and kick blows. The witnesses

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

17/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

have professed to inform that it was Mahesh Hingade, who had

created terror in the locality.

19. If the report of the first informant Mr. Yogesh Naik is

considered in conjunction with the statements of the eye witnesses,

it becomes abundantly clear that the role of assault by means of

sickle was attributed to Mr. Mahesh Hingade. Conversely, the

petitioner herein was initially not named as an assailant. Nor is it a

positive case that the petitioner had assaulted the first informant by

means of sickle. On the contrary, the first informant reported that

Mahesh Hingade had assaulted him as they were on inimical terms.

20. Likewise, from the narration qua C.R. No. 1076 of 2020,

(extracted above), it becomes evident that the Detaining Authority

again made an endeavour to attribute a major role to the petitioner.

However, from the perusal of the first information report lodged by

Mr. Akash Pawar, it becomes abundantly clear that the alleged

incident occurred as the first informant was having a conversation

with Mr. Pravin Shalke, who was inimically disposed towards

Jayesh Lokhande. As the said Pravin Shalke allegedly ran away

after noticing Jayesh Lokhande and his associates, the latter

accosted the first informant and abused and assaulted him. Jayesh

Lokhande and Shubham Sarode were allegedly armed with sickle

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

18/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

like sharp weapons. They assaulted him by means of the blunt side

of the said weapons. The role attributed to the petitioner herein is

of assaulting the first informant by means of stick on back and legs.

Mr. Akash Pawar further reported that Jayesh Lokhande threatened

the persons who came to his rescue. Mr. Jayesh Lokhade had

created terror in the said locality.

21. The aforesaid analysis of the material pertaining to C.R. Nos.

931 of 2020 and 1076 of 2020 indicates; firstly, the genesis of those

two offences is in the previous enmity between the first informant

in C.R.No.931 of 2020 and Mr.Mahesh Hingade, the principal

accused therein, and Mr. Jayesh Lokhande, the principal accused in

C.R.No. 1076 of 2020 and Mr. Pravin Shalke, the friend of the first

informant therein. Secondly, it is imperative to note that in neither

of the offences, the role of having assaulted the respective first

informant, by means of a deadly weapon, is attributed to the

petitioner. Thirdly, the endeavour made by the Detaining Authority

to paint the picture of the petitioner as the principal accused, nay

the leader of the gang of assailants, is belied by the allegations in

the first information reports and statements of witnesses.

22. The acts attributed to the petitioner in the aforesaid

narration, in the grounds of detention, are, thus, simply not made

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

19/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

out by the underlying documents. The justification for the

detention sought to be offered, in the grounds of detention, thus,

suffers from a grave misconstruction of the record. In an effort to

shore up grounds in support of detention order, the Detaining

Authority has committed a patent error of levelling against the

petitioner the imputations, which the documents do not bear out.

23. In any event, even if the material relied upon by the

Detaining Authority is taken at par, the acts attributed to the

petitioner would fall within the ambit of a case of breach of law

and order. As indicated above, the role attributed to the petitioner

is, at best, that of an accomplice of the principal offender. In the

first case, no assault is attributed to the petitioner. In the second

case, the petitioner allegedly assaulted the first informant by means

of stick only. In both the cases, the previous enmity between the

respective assailant and the victim, was alleged to be the genesis of

the occurrence. Applying the tests, adverted to above, to the facts

of the case, we find it rather difficult to persuade ourselves to hold

that the acts committed by the petitioner were such that they

disturbed the public tranquility by creating a terror and panic in the

society or a considerable number of the people in the said locality.

24. The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that the

Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS

20/20 CRI.WP-559-2021-J.doc

subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority suffers

from misconstruction of material placed before it and,

consequently, non-application of mind. The objectionable acts of

the petitioner, even if taken at par, would fall within the dragnet of

"law and order" and can be taken care of by ordinary laws. Thus,

there was no justification for resorting to the provisions contained

in section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, 1981 and, thereby impinge upon

the cherished personal liberty of the petitioner.

25. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded to quash the

impugned order and set the petitioner at liberty. Hence, the

following order :

ORDER

(i) The petition stands allowed.

(ii) The impugned order of detention dated 20 th November

2020 stands quashed and set aside.

(iii) The petitioner- Shubham Rajendra Hingade be set at

liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other

case.

Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

    (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)                                  (S. S. SHINDE, J.)



Mrs. Shraddha Talekar PS