"Preventive detention law cannot be resorted to deal with ordinary law and order problem:" Bombay High Court quashes detention order

Provisions authorising preventive detention cannot be resorted to deal with ordinary law and order problem, observed the Bombay High Court while setting aside an order of preventive detention passed by the Pune Police Commissioner under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (Shubham Rajendra Hingade v. State of Maharashtra)..A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar observed that a proper test to distinguish between the "law and order" and "public order" is two fold:whether the complained acts lead to disturbance of the ordinary tempo of life of the community leading to disturbance of public order; orwhether it merely affects the individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed."It is the propensity and potentiality of the act disturbing the even tempo of life the community that renders it as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order," the Court said..The Court opined that the provisions which authorise preventive detention cannot be resorted to as an "easy substitute" to deal with an "ordinary law and order problem". It added that while the detaining authority is empowered to detain a person, he ought to record a subjective satisfaction based on 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 empower the detention"..The Court applied these principles to the present case to conclude that the objectionable acts attributed to the petitioner would fall within the dragnet of "law and order" and can be taken care of by ordinary laws."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" the Court said, quashing the detention order and releasing the petitioner from detention..The petitioner, Shubham Rajendra Hingade, challenged an order of detention dated November 20, 2021 passed by the Detaining Authority under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act.He was booked in two cases under Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act for causing grievous hurt by means of a deadly weapon and was released on bail in both cases..After an enquiry was conducted, it was allegedly discovered that Hingade and his associates had been committing offences and were a perpetual danger to the lives and properties of the people residing within the local limits of the police station. The inquiry also revealed that nobody from their locality came forward to lodge complaint and depose against them due to fear of retaliation which was evident from the in-camera statements of two witnesses.The Police Commissioner, therefore, passed the detention order which was also approved by State government. Both the order and the approval were assailed in the present petition. .From the pleadings before it, the Court observed that:In neither of the cases, the role of having assaulted the first informants in respective cases was attributed to Hingade;The role attributed to the petitioner is, at best, that of an accomplice of the principal offender.Detaining Authority had endeavoured to paint a picture of Hingade as the principle accused, the leader of gang of assailants, which was belied by the allegations in the First Information Reports and the statement of the witnesses. .[Read judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.