Public Threats, Private Statements: Bombay High Court Navigates Detention Order Challenge.
22 December 2023
Corruption >> Criminal Law | Extortion >> Criminal Law
A recent court case in Maharashtra shed light on the use of in-camera statements and the timeliness of issuing detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA). The case involved Tirupati Mundkar, who was detained by authorities based on a police complaint alleging assault and threats, along with accusations of extortion and threats with weapons from in-camera statements.
Tirupati's brother challenged the detention order, arguing various points. Firstly, there was a significant delay between the incidents and the issuance of the order. Secondly, the petitioner contested the use of in-camera statements, claiming they lacked proper verification and did not address a public order situation. Finally, the challenge included a claim that documents provided with the detention order were illegible.
The court acknowledged the time gap but found the explanation regarding processing the in-camera statements reasonable. The court's decision hinged on the precedent set in the Phulwari Pathak case, which established the validity of using verified in-camera statements for preventive detention if they connect to public order concerns. In this case, the court deemed the allegations in the statements relevant to public order as they involved threats directed at the public at large.
The court dismissed the challenge regarding illegible documents due to a lack of evidence from the petitioner. Ultimately, the petition was unsuccessful, and the court upheld the detention order.