Manjusha Ajay Deshpande, J.

1. The Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. This Petition has been filed by the mother of the Detenu namely Ashwin @ Barkya Balkrushna Lonare, against whom the Order of Detention has been issued by the Respondent No. 2 - Commissioner of Police, Pune City.

The Petitioner is challenging the Order of Detention dated 11.06.2024, issued against her son namely Ashwin @ Barkya Balkrushna Lonare (Detenu), by the Respondent No. 2 - Commissioner of Police, Pune City, in exercise of his powers 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. ("the MPDA Act"). According to the Petitioner, the Detenu has been detained in Chandrapur Prison by the Order of Committal dated 11.06.2024 which is issued pursuant to the Order of Detention, by the Respondent No. 2.

2. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the Order of Detention has been issued by the Detaining Authority merely on two grounds : (i) An offence registered against the Detenu at Warje Malwadi Police Station on 15.04.2024 vide C.R. No. 161/2024 and (ii) The Two in-camera statements of Witness 'A' and 'B'.

Being aggrieved with the said Order of Detention, which is in violation of fundamental rights of the Detenu, guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the said Order of Detention.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi, appearing for the Petitioner, while making his submissions has submitted that the incident on the basis of which the FIR has been registered as well as the incident which have been stated in the in-camera statement of the witnesses, do not refer that the acts and conduct attributed to the Detenu caused breach of peace and public order or it has caused disturbance to the even tempo of public life. The acts and conduct attributed to the Petitioner were mostly individualistic and there was no element of disturbance to public order involved in the incident. The said incident was capable of being taken care by the general law, therefore, the Order of Detention was not at all necessary.

4. It is further contended by the Petitioner that the FIR on which the Detaining Authority has placed his reliance i.e. C.R. No. 161 of 2024, which has been registered on 15.04.2024, and the two in-camera statements of witness 'A' and 'B' narrating the alleged incident dated 10.03.2024 and 07.01.2024, for which the in-camera statements are recorded on 28.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 respectively. According to the Petitioner, thus there is no live link between the alleged incident and the Order of Detention, which is issued on 11.06.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the contents of the FIR, wherein it is the complaint of the informant that while the informant was on patrolling duty within Warje Police Station, limits, the information was received that externed accused Ashwin Lonare (Detenu) i.e. the son of the Petitioner was near Rosary School, MHADA Vasahat, Warje and he possessed a pistol. Description of his appearance and clothes was given. The said information was passed on to Police Inspector Mr. Bahirat who summoned panch witness and proceeded near the Rosary School, where as per the tip-off, the Detenu was found and he was caught at 15.50 hours. Upon making inquiry about the name, age etc., the Detenu has given the information.

During his search, one country made pistol worth Rs. 40,000/- was found near the waist of the Detenu with four live rounds worth Rs. 2,000/-. The police inquired with the Detenu about the licence for the weapon, to which the Detenu replied in negative, therefore the said pistol with the rounds, was seized in the presence of panch witnesses. Thereafter, when the inquiry was made with Warje Police Station, it revealed that the Detenu was externed from Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad Police Commissionerate and Pune District, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Hence, the Detenu was inquired about the permission to enter in Pune, to which replied in the negative.

Since he had violated the preventive orders issued on 01.04.2024 and externment order under Section 56(1)(a) (b) dated 21.03.2024, a complaint came to be filed against the Detenu and he was arrested on 15.04.2024 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivajinagar, Pune. The Detenu was remanded to the police custody till 20.04.2024 and Magisterial Custody till 04.05.2024. Thereafter, the Detenu was granted bail on 04.05.2024.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the contents of the confidential statements of witness 'A' and 'B', which are recorded on 28.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 respectively.

Witness 'A' narrates an incident that had occurred on 10.03.2024 in which during the incident, the witness was assaulted and threatened with the pistol, while he was returning from his work, by the Detenu. The statement of Witness 'A' has been verified on 15.05.2024, by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kothrud Division , Pune.

In the statement of witness 'B', he has narrated about an incident which had occurred on 27.01.2024, during the night at 8.30 p.m.. According to the said witness, when he was working on his Chinese Center alongwith his workmen, the Detenu alongwith his companion visited his stall. They were armed with wooden sticks and the Detenu demanded his monthly installment. When the witness expresses his inability, the Detenu started assaulting him with fist and blows and took out the country made pistol and threatened the witness. The people who were watching the said incident, due to the threat and terror have deserted the place. The said statement was verified on 15.05.2024.

7. The Detaining Authority has filed his affidavit. According to the Detaining Authority, only after being satisfied that the Detenu is a dangerous person, within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, and further being satisfied that he his acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was felt necessary to detain the Detenu, the Order of Detention has been issued. The Detaining Authority has stated that, after carefully going through the material placed before him and proper verification, he is satisfied that the Detenu is weapon-wielding dangerous desperado of violent character, indulging in criminal activities.

The Detenu is engaged in criminal activities since 2023 and has created a reign of terror in the minds of the people. He is habitually committing offence under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") as well as Chapter V of the Arms Act. Thus, he is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act.

The Senior Inspector of Police, Sinhgadroad Police Station, who is the Sponsoring Authority, conducted a confidential inquiry of the criminal activities of the Detenu and during the confidential inquiry, recorded statement of witness 'A' and 'B' on 28.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 respectively, about the atrocities faced by the witnesses at the hands of the Detenu. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sinhgadroad Division, Pune City, has personally verified the genuineness and truthfulness of the statements by visiting the places of the incident and inquiry thereto.

8. The Detaining Authority has placed reliance on the same while passing the Order of Detention. It is only after due application of mind and being subjectively satisfied, he has passed the Order of Detention. The Detaining Authority has submitted that, he has considered three incidents occurred on 15.04.2024 vide C.R. No. 161 of 2024 and in-camera statement of witness 'A' and 'B' recorded on 28.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 respectively. All the incidents have involvement of the Detenu and committed within the period of five months and therefore it cannot be said that there is no live link. The in-camera witnesses are not easily available and the witnesses are usually reluctant to come forward. It is only upon taking them in the confidence and assured that their names would not be disclosed, they come forward to give in-camera statements.

9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for State and having gone through the relevant material, we find that the Order of Detention issued against the Detenu suffers from non-application of mind.

Firstly, the FIR No. 161 of 2024 registered on 15.04.2024 does not reflect any disturbance to the maintenance of public order. The Detenu was apprehended on being tipped-off about his movement in the said area and pistol was seized in his possession only because the order of externment was operating against him. The said FIR is shown to have registered under Section 115, 120(B) of the IPC, under Section 3(25) of the Arms Act and under Section 37(1)(3)/135, 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Not once but twice in the Grounds of Detention, the said chart about C.R. No. 161 of 2024 has been reproduced by the Detaining Authority indicating the above sections which are made applicable to the said C.R. Upon perusal of the FIR, we find that the Section under which the FIR has been registered are only Section 3(25) of the Arms Act and Section 142, 37(1)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. We do not find Section 115 and 120(B) of the IPC in this said offence, which is registered against the Detenu. This itself indicates the non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority, who has filed affidavit and stated that only upon scrutiny of the record, which is placed before him and due application of mind, he has issued the said Order of Detention.

10. Similarly, the other incident of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority can be gathered from the dates of the offences and in-camera statements which have been relied on by the Detaining Authority. According to the Detaining Authority, he has relied on C.R. No. 161 of 2024 which is registered on 15.04.2024, in which the Detenu was arrested on 15.04.2024 and has been released on bail on 04.05.2024. Whereas the statement of witness 'A' has been recorded on 28.04.2024 for the incident dated 10.03.2024 i.e. the incident which had occurred before the registration of last offence relied upon by the Detaining Authority. Similarly, the statement of witness 'B' is recorded on 30.04.2024 for the incident that had occurred on 27.01.2024, even the said incident had occurred much before the registration of last offence i.e. 15.04.2024. Both the statements cannot be relied on, since they are incidents prior to the occurrence of offence which is relied by the Detaining Authority. The verification of both the statements has been done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 15.05.2024, considering that there is a huge gap in recording of in-camera statements and their verification.

11. The Order of Detention is issued in order to prevent the Detenu from causing danger to the lives and property of the people residing in the area and carrying out the daily activities, since it is an allegation against the Detenu that he is engaged in violent criminal activities and threatening the people by use of deadly weapons. It was found necessary by the Detaining Authority to restrain him from committing such an offence therefore the Order of Detention has been issued against him. It is only on account of urgency, such drastic steps are taken against the Detenu. It is observed that because of the continued serious offences of the Detenu, the Order of Detention has issued against him. However, the steps taken by the Detaining Authority in furtherance of their proposal do not indicate any urgency while issuing the said Order of Detention. Though the offence is registered on 15.04.2024, and the in- camera statements have been recorded on 28.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 respectively, the verification of the statement has been done much later i.e. on 15.05.2024.

12. The Order of Detention also suffers from the non- application of mind, since the incident which had occurred prior to registration of offence have been relied upon by the Detaining Authority, which does not reflect any live link. As a result, there is no live link between the last offence and the in- camera statements. The in-camera statements seems to have recorded only to fill in the gap between registration of offence and issuance of Order of Detention.

The Detaining Authority has failed to apply his mind to the details of the FIR mentioned in the Grounds of Detention, which contains the Sections of IPC, which are not present in the copy of the original FIR produced on record. Apart from the said ground, the other ground of absence of live link also makes the Order of Detention unsustainable.

13. Considering the observations made hereinabove, the Order of Detention being unsustainable due to the non- application of mind by the Detaining Authority, is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the Order of Detention issued against the Detenu by the Detaining Authority is hereby quashed and set aside and Rule is made absolute, by directing the son of the Petitioner namely Ashwin @ Barkya Balkrushna Lonare (Detenu) to be released forthwith.