BHUPENDRA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 14-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 709 
BHUPENDRA 
A 
II. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.890 Of 2008) 
MAY 14, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum-
lords, Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders and Dangerous Persons 
Act, 1981 - ss. 3(2) and 8(2) - Detention Oider under the Act c 
- Challenge to, on the ground of absence of link between ac-
· tivities of detenu and the date of detention order - Held: Pro-
vision empowering detention relates to habitual activities of 
.. 
the proposed detenu - Therefore, there has to be instance 
which may not be of immediate proximity but may indicate D 
that pattern - On facts, detention order shows that detenu was 
hired on payment by anti-social elements for comrriission of 
violent crimes - Occurrence not of remote past to warrant con-
clusion of absence of live link - Thus, detention order correct. 
Preventive detention: 
E 
Law of preventive detention - Discussed. 
... 
Detention order-Acts prejudicial to maintenance of pub-
lie order - Areas of 'law and order and public order' - Distinc-
tion between. 
F 
Words and Phrases: 'Law and Order', 'public order' and 
'security of state' - Meaning of. 
The detention order was passed against the appel-
:>-
lant u/s. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous G 
Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and 
Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. He was detained under the 
Act. The grounds of detention were served on 23.4.07. 
Appellant filed Habeas Corpus petition to quash and set 
709 
H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 
;!... 
A aside the detention order on the g1round that the deten-
tion order indicated cases relating to law and order situa-
tion and had nothing to do with the maintenance of public 
order and were old. High Court found that several offences 
were registered from 2005 till few days before the deten-
B tion order and there was live link between the activities of 
• 
detention and date of passing of detention order. High 
Court dismissed the petition. Hence! the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that there was no live link be-
c 
tween the activities of the detenu and the date of passing 
of the impugned order of detention; that reference was 
made to some of the incidents which allegedly took place 
in 2005 and in any event when preventive action in terms 
of s.107 ands. 110 Cr.P.C. had been taken, there was no 
need for passing the order of detention; that the alleged 
..,. 
D acts at·the most related to law and order situation and 
having nothing to do with public order; that the statement 
of in camera witnesses should not have been relied upon 
by the detaining authority without forming an opinion as 
to whether they represented the truth. 
E 
Respondl[!nt-State and its functionaries contended 
that the detention order was correct. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
+ 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The order of detention shows that the ap-
pellant is often hired on payment by anti-social elements 
for commission of violent crimes. The detenu and his as-
sociates always possessed deadly weapons and the in-
stances highlighted related to 1.5.2005, 1.6.2005 and 
24.2.2006 and a dispute between a particular community 
G and the builders over the possession of land and the ac-
tivities of the detenu, and lastly on 24.3.2007 it has been 
noted that serious riotous situatioi1 developed at a par-
ticular high school ground where hundreds of members 
of a particular community had assembled. It resulted in 
H intense fear and panic situation because of the activities 
,>.:, 
BHUPENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
711 
&ANR. 
of detenu. It was also pointed out in the order of deten-
A 
tion that various preventive action taken ulss 107 and 110 
Cr.P.C. yielded no positive results and the detenu contin-
ued his violent and criminal activities. Reference was also 
made to the witnesses who were examined in camera. So 
far as the truthfulness of these witnesses is concerned B 
reference was made to s. 8(2) of the Act which permits 
withholding the statement of certain witnesses in public 
,. 
interest. [Paras 6) [714F,G, 715-A,B] 
1.2. With regard to the question of live link it is to be 
noted that the provision empowering detention relates to C 
habitual activities of the proposed detenu. Therefore, there 
has to be instance which may not be of immediate proxim-
ity but may indicate that pattern. In the instance case, the 
incidence cannot be said to be of remot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.