Can mere delay in passing of an Detention Order, be considered as ground for Judicial Intervention

Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 14th February 2020

Pravin Bhavya Pratap Shinde vs Commissioner of Police, Pune and Ors

Matter

In this case a preventive detention order has been passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 198, against Pravin Bhavya Pratap Shinde by the Commissioner of Police, Pune. The petitioner (i.e. Pravin Shinde) was accused of creating terror in the society and engaged in illegal activities. The detention order was passed on the basis of two criminal cases filed against the petitioner. The first case was registered with the Faraskhana Police Station, while the second case was registered with Samarth Police Station.  

Appellant’s Contention (Pravin Bhavya Pratap Shinde)

• It alleged that the respondent who had passed the detention order on the basis of the two criminal cases filed against the accused and the in-camera statements of witness A and B, had received all the required material by 10/07/2019. However, the detention order was passed late on 06/09/2019. This is a gross delay. This kind of detention is illegal and thus liable to be quashed. 
• The in-camera statements of witness A and B were recorded in July, 2019. However, the detaining authority verified it on 06/09/2019, which led to the delay in passing the order. The detaining authority verified the documents on the day when the detention order was passed. Thus, the in-camera statements of the witnesses were not a part of the proposal. 
• According to the respondent the people of the Society at large in the areas of Shivaji Nagar, Vishrambaug, Faraskhana and Samarth Nagar Police Station of Pune City are experiencing a sense of insecurity are in a constant state of fear. However, there is no material to show that any such incidents took place. 
• It gave the example of the case of Narendra @ Chotya Mahadev Balkawade v/s. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City.

Respondent’s Contention (Commissioner of Police, Pune)

• It invited the attention of the courts towards the averments made in the affidavits and additional affidavits filed by Dr. K Venkatesham (Commissioner of Police), Aniruddha Jewlikar (Deputy Secretary, in-charge), Umaji Pawar (Superintendent of Jail, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune).
• The court cannot look into the sufficiency of the grounds in passing the detention order.
• Mere delay in passing the detention order itself cannot be a ground in causing interference in detention order if the delay is satisfactorily explained. Even if there is a delay, and the said delay is not explained that itself is not a ground to cause interference in the order of detention.  
• The detaining authority has produced details of the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and his associates, which has caused a sense of insecurity and terror among the society at large. 
• The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Faraskhana Division forwarded a report after verifying and scrutinizing all the documents and the statements of the witnesses. The detaining authority thereafter was satisfied with the truthfulness of the report and thus passed the detaining order. 
• There is neither delay in passing the detention order and nor was it illegal. 
• All the guidelines for passing a detention order were complied with and due procedure was followed at the time of passing the impugned order. 

Held 

• The Senior Police Inspector of Faraskhana Police Station had duly investigated the case, collected relevant material, and documents of the cases against the petitioner from the court and thereafter prepared a proposal for the detention of the Petitioner. It was then forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Faraskhana Division, Pune, and subsequently to other authorities, before it was received by the Detention Authority. Thus, the proposal to pass the detention order had been scrutinized at various levels. Thus, the proposal was truthful and genuine. 
• Since the proposal to pass the detention order had been verified at every level by various authorities it cannot be accepted that there is a delay in passing the detention order. 
• The ACP verified truthfulness and genuineness of the statements of witness “A” and “B” recorded in-camera. Therefore, is complete and proper application of mind while passing the detention order. 
• The petitioner has unleashed terror in the society at large.