HC quashes detention order saying details not given to detenu

Observing that the law relating to preventive detention was not strictly complied with, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order of Nagpur Police Commissioner detaining a person under a State Act.
33-year-old Satish Samudre had moved the High Court challenging his detention under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act (MPDA).
The court noted recently that in-camera statements of two witnesses, on the basis of which Samudre was detained, did not contain the details of the incidents in which they claimed to have been threatened such as date, time place etc.

The blank spaces left in the in-camera statements to hide such details would deprive the petitioner from knowing the date, time and place of the incidents. Thus, effectively, he would not be able to make a representation to defend himself, observed justices Abhay Oak and Reveti Mohite-Dere.
The petitioner said the detaining authority had taken into consideration two statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' recorded in-camera in the detention order. These statements were vague and baseless in as much as the two incidents narrated by witnesses do not mention date/time and place and these details are left blank. As a result, the detenu said he could not make effective representation.

The detaining authority justified its decision in not disclosing details about the incidents to the detenu because the two witnesses were afraid of criminal activities of the petitioner and apprehended danger to their lives and property.
The detaining authority further said that in view of this apprehension, the witnesses were unwilling to come forward and lodge their complaints against the petitioner.It is only on taking them into confidence that they (witnesses) came forward and gave in-camera statements against the detenu.
Moreover, the in-camera statements were verified by an Assistant Commissioner of Police as required under Section 8(2) of the MPDA Act and Article 22(6) of the Constitution. Hence, the Detaining Authority had the power not to disclose facts which it considered to be against the public interest.