Preventive Detention and Public Order: The Legal Case for Detaining a Dangerous Person.


13 March 2024 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a significant ruling of Pullusingh @ Jaysingh Kalusingh Junni v/s The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, Pune & Others, the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging a detention order issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA). The case revolves around the preventive detention of a petitioner accused of committing acts that were deemed prejudicial to public order, as per the provisions of the MPDA. The petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of the detention order passed by the concerned authorities. The challenge raised several legal arguments, including the nature of the disturbances caused by the petitioner and the reliance on in-camera statements of witnesses.

Factual Background: 

The petitioner had been detained under Section 3(2) of the MPDA after being labeled a "dangerous person" by the detaining authority. The detention was primarily based on two criminal cases (CR No. 345 and CR No. 71, both registered on February 25, 2023), where the petitioner was accused of violent behavior and threats that had the potential to disturb public peace. The petitioner contested the detention order, arguing that the disturbances were limited to a few individuals and did not constitute a threat to public order at large. Additionally, the petitioner argued that a settlement had occurred in one of the criminal cases, further substantiating their claim that they were unlikely to disrupt public peace. The core issue in the case was whether the petitioner's actions had crossed the threshold from a mere law and order issue to one that jeopardized public order as envisaged under the MPDA.

 
 

Legal Grounds of the Petition: 

The petitioner raised several legal grounds to challenge the detention order:

Nature of the Disturbances: The petitioner argued that the disturbances, as stated in the grounds for detention, had only affected a few individuals and not the community at large. Hence, it did not meet the legal threshold for disrupting public order.
Settlement of Criminal Cases: In Crime No. 71 of 2023, the petitioner contended that the matter had been amicably settled with the complainant's family members, indicating that there was no threat of the petitioner disturbing public order after being released on bail.
Reliability of In-Camera Statements: The petitioner challenged the credibility of the in-camera statements of witnesses, claiming that they were fabricated by the police to justify the detention order.
The petitioner relied on the judgment in Kamlakar Shankar Patil v. B. Akashi (1994 Cri. L. J. 1870), which discussed the distinction between "law and order" and "public order," emphasizing that only disturbances that affect the larger community and disrupt the general peace can be categorized as threats to public order.

The Respondent's Counter-Argument: 

The respondents, represented by the learned Advocate Mr. Yagnik, argued that the petitioner's actions were indeed prejudicial to public order. They pointed to the specific circumstances of Crime No. 71 of 2023, where the petitioner had created a disturbance at a public hospital by threatening several individuals with a weapon. This, they argued, affected not just the direct victims but also the wider public, thereby disturbing public peace. Moreover, the respondents maintained that the in-camera statements of witnesses, which were verified by the police, provided sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner was a dangerous individual. The detaining authority had, based on these facts, issued the detention order to prevent further harm to the public.

The Court's Analysis: 

The court noted that preventive detention orders can be issued even if a prosecution has not been successful, and that the success or failure of criminal prosecution does not affect the validity of such detention orders. The court also emphasized that in-camera statements, if properly verified and found credible, are admissible in detention cases. Regarding the distinction between law and order versus public order, the court concluded that while the first criminal act may have been a personal altercation within the complainant's house, the second incident, which occurred in a public hospital, was much more serious. The petitioner, by brandishing a sharp weapon and threatening the public, had disrupted the general peace and safety of the area. The court also recognized the petitioner’s broader influence in the locality, which had resulted in witnesses being unwilling to come forward due to fear of retaliation. After considering all the material presented, the court concluded that the detaining authority had rightly exercised its discretion in issuing the detention order under the MPDA. The petitioner's activities, including terrorizing local residents, threatened public order, and justified the preventive detention.

Conclusion: 

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the preventive detention order, upholding the decision of the detaining authority. The ruling reinforces the broad scope of the MPDA, which allows for preventive detention of individuals deemed to be a danger to public order. It also underscores the importance of in-camera statements in cases where witnesses fear reprisal, and the need for authorities to ensure the public's safety from individuals engaging in disruptive behavior. The judgment highlights the legal threshold for defining a "dangerous person" and the role of preventive detention in maintaining public order.