MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Lack of Promptitude and Violation of Constitutional Rights' Undermines Detention Under MPDA Act: Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court on February 29, 2024, quashed the detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA Act) against Nilesh Sunil Pendulkar. The Court, comprising Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme, emphasized the lack of promptitude in the issuance of the detention order and the violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

The judgment scrutinized the validity of the preventive detention order issued under the MPDA Act. The Court examined the delay in the issuance of the detention order, non-consideration of the bail order, and the violation of constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

The petitioner, Nilesh Sunil Pendulkar, challenged the detention order dated October 6, 2023, under the MPDA Act, where he was declared a 'dangerous person' based on a sole offense (C.R. No.210/2023). The grounds for challenging the detention included a significant delay in the issuance of the detention order, non-consideration of the bail order, and violations of constitutional rights.

The Court observed a "significant delay" in passing the detention order, noting a lack of explanation for the delay, which resulted in questioning the detention's legitimacy. It held, "When the respondents are taking drastic action under the Act against the petitioner, they are expected to be diligent because personal liberty of the proposed detenue is at stake."

On the issue of non-consideration of the bail order, the Court found a lack of proper application of mind by the detaining authority and stated, "Nonconsideration of order releasing detenue on bail would vitiate detention order."

Regarding the violation of constitutional rights, the Court noted the petitioner's rights were infringed as the rejection of his representation was not communicated effectively and the documents provided were largely illegible, impairing his ability to make an effective representation.

The Court quashed the detention order dated October 6, 2023, passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar. It was held that the order was vitiated by procedural improprieties and violation of constitutional rights, ordering the petitioner to be set at liberty.

Date of Decision: February 29, 2024

Nilesh Sunil Pendulkar vs. The District Magistrate, Ahmednagar & Others

Similar News