Oral Judgment:

M.S. Karnik, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the detention order dated 10th March, 2025 bearing No.2025/DCB-2/RR-1196 (1)/25 passed by the District Magistrate, Solapur, District Solapur under section 3 (1) of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Ofenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act”). The Superintendent of Police, Solapur submitted a proposal on 4th February, 2025 for detention of the detenu under the MPDA Act to the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority satisied himself that the petitioner is a dangerous person within the meaning of section 2 (b-1) of the MPDA Act. Further, the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and, therefore, he found it necessary to detain the detenu under the MPDA Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in a similar manner in future. The Detaining Authority was satisied from the materials on record, which include in-camera statements of witnesses on which reliance is placed, that such an order is necessary.

2. We may refer to a few facts in the context of submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the detention order be quashed on the ground of unexplained delay. Learned Counsel submitted that there was a partition suit pending between the family and relatives of the petitioner. Four ofences, out of eight relied upon, were registered by the relatives of the petitioner which, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was the fall out of the partition suit and had nothing to do with the petitioner’s activities as a dangerous person.

3. It is pertinent to note that an F.I.R came to be registered against the petitioner on 11th September, 2024 by the irst informant in respect of an incident which took place on 9th September, 2024. According to the irst informant, the petitioner forcibly removed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the pocket of the irst informant. The petitioner abused the irst informant and led away from the spot on the motorcycle belonging to the irst informant. Thereafter, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 23rd September, 2024 in respect of the aforesaid F.I.R lodged on 11th September, 2024. The following conditions were imposed;

                    “1 The application is allowed.

                    2. The accused Balaji Hanumant Pawar be released on bail on executing the personal bond of Rs.15,000/- with surety in like amount.

                    3. The accused shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and shall not hamper the investigation in any manner.

                    4. The accused shall not, directly or findirectly, make any finducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police Officer.

                    5. The accused shall visit the concerned Police Station as and when required.

                    6. The accused shall co-operate the Investigation Officer as and when required.

                    7. The accused shall not findulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

                    8. The prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of any of the conditions imposed”.

4. Now, we must make reference to the two in-camera statements of the witnesses which were recorded on 18th January, 2025. Incamera statement of witness A relates to the incident which took place on 5th October, 2024. It is alleged that the detenu threatened in-camera witness A for the reason that he had disclosed to the Police that it was the detenu who had led away from the spot on the motorcycle which belongs to the irst informant. It is alleged that there was demand made by the detenu for reimbursement of Rs.20,000/- deposited by him for securing bail. Then there is the incamera statement of witness B recorded on 18th January, 2025 for the incident which took place on 1st October, 2024. This is pertaining to demand of Rs.2000/- made by the detenu which was forcibly taken by him from witness B for entertaining his friends. In this context, it is pertinent to note that after the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 23rd September, 2024, these in-camera statements came to be recorded on 18th January, 2025 for the incidents which took place on 5th October, 2024 and 1st October, 2024. In the context of unexplained delay, it would be pertinent to refer to the aidavit-in- reply iled by the District Magistrate Solapur who passed the detention order dated 10th March, 2025. Paragraph 12 reads thus;

                    “12. With reference to para No. 9(d) of the Writ Petition, I say that contents therein are not admitted by this Respondents. Due to continuous and dangerous criminal activities of the Petitioner, the sponsoring authority made inquiry about the activities of the petitioner and on 30/01/2025 the sponsoring authority i.e. Assistant P.I of Karkamb Police Station, had submitted the proposal under MPDA Act, to Superintendent of Police, Solapur Rural who carefully went through all the papers and submit the proposal under MPDA Act, to Office of the District Magistrate Solapur on 04/02/2025.

                    Nayab Tahsildar, of Office of the District Magistrate Solapur went through all the papers. The proposal and all attached documents were scrutinized by D. M. Office and noting was submitted to Additional District Magistrate Solapur on 21/02/2025. Additional District Magistrate Solapur perused and gave their endorsement on 24/02/2025. Thereafter all the papers were put up before the detaining authority on 28/02/2025.

                    The proposal along with the attached papers was perused by me, being the Detaining Authority and was of opinion that this is a it case for detention under MPDA Act. I was also satisied that the preventive actions taken in the past against the Petitioner were insuicient to curb his criminal activities, hence, I gave approval to the said proposal on 10/03/2025.

                    After completing all the necessary work in this matters i.e. typing, re-typing of grounds of detention, translation of relied upon documents in English language and preparing necessary sets of documents etc., the Detaining Authority once again carefully went through the proposal and the papers accompanying it. When satisied with the grounds of detention and necessary rectiications, I, issued detention order on 10/03/2025.

                    Detention Order, Grounds of Detention and other relevant papers along with their translated copies in Marathi language has been served upon the petitioner. Thu

                    This in fact findicates that reasonable assessment and application has been done in order to pass the Detention Order against the petitioner.

                    I say that as per procedure laid down in M.P.D.A. Act and after following all formalities the detaining authority has passed the detention order within stipulated period. I say that there is neither intentional nor deliberate delay by detaining authority at the time of passing detention order dated 10/03/2025”.

                    [emphasis supplied]

5. It is thus seen from the aidavit that the proposal to detain the detenu was initiated only after the detenu was enlarged on bail.

6. So far as the question of unexplained delay is concerned, it is seen that Sponsoring Authority made inquiry about activities of the detenu and on 30th January, 2025, the Sponsoring Authority i.e Assistant Police Inspector of Karkamb Police Station, had submitted the proposal under the MPDA Act to the Superintendent of Police, Solapur (Rural), who went through all the papers and submitted the proposal under the MPDA Act to the Office of the District Magistrate, Solapur, on 4th February, 2025. The documents were scrutinized by the District Magistrate’s Office and noting was submitted to the Additional District Magistrate, Solapur on 21st February, 2025. The Additional District Magistrate, Solapur gave his endorsement on 24th February, 2025. It is thus seen that for the period from 4th February, 2025 to 21st February, 2025, there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming for the delay.

7. In respect of the in-camera statement of witnesses A, it had relevance to the F.I.R in respect of which the detenu was enlarged on bail. In such view of the matter, it was open for the Investigating Officer to apply for cancellation of bail, which course was not resorted to, instead the said statement was made the basis of the detention order. This, in our opinion, would vitiate the detention order as the subjective satisfaction of the detention order is on the basis of materials which should not have considered. There is no explanation why resort had to be taken to the detention route rather than adopting the ordinary course of applying for cancellation of bail.

8. We find that there is unexplained delay of almost twenty days in committing the proposal at the behest of Additional District Magistrate’s Office. We find that there is no explanation for the delay in submission. There is unexplained delay for the period from 4th February, 2025 when the proposal was submitted to the Office of the District Magistrate, Solapur till the papers were put up before the Detaining Authority on 28th February, 2025. We are, therefore, satisied that on this ground alone, the order of detention needs to be set aside.

9. In all fairness to the learned A.P.P, we must say that he was at pains to point out that delay has been satisfactorily explained. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Harshad Jivanrao Mundkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others(AIROnline 2023 Bom 2184) to submit that in the present case Detaining Authority had explained in details all steps taken from the date of recording in-camera statements till the date of detention order. Therefore, there is no question of delay in issuing the detention order. According to us, the facts of the present case are distinguishable. We found that the aforesaid delay is unexplained. In Harshad Jivanrao Mundkar (supra), this Court was satisied that the delay was explained properly.

10. Learned A.P.P also relied on the decision of this Court in case of Krishna Hari Godambe vs. the Commissioner of Police and others, decided on 3rd May, 2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.3945 of 2016. Reliance is placed on paragraph 16, which reads thus;

                    “16. Coming to the case in hand, the detention order was issued on 7.10.2016 i.e after 3 months and 12 days from the date when the last incamera statement was recorded which was recorded on 25.6.2016 and after 2 months and 17 days from the submission of proposal i.e on 20.7.2016. Looking to the prejudicial activities of the detenu, we are of the opinion that the delay, if any, during this period which is unexplained, would not snap the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the purpose of detention. In any event, we are of the opinion that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Thus, we find no merit in this ground”.

11. We find that the decision in case of Krishna Hari Godambe (supra) is squarely distinguishable on facts. The Division Bench was considering a case having regard to the prejudicial activities of the detenu. Their Lordships held that having regard to the prejudicial activities of the detenu, the unexplained delay would not snap the live-link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the purpose of detention. Such is not the fact situation in the present case.

12. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus;

                “B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari or any other Writ for quashing and setting aside impugned Detention Order dated 10/03/2025 bearing No.2025/DCB-2/RR-1196 (1)/25 passed by District Magistrate, Solapur, Dist. Solapur, issued u/s. 3 (1) of the M.P.D.A Act; and arising out of impugned Committal Order dated 21/04/2025 bearing No. MPDA-0325/C.R. 110/Spl. 3b passed by the Respondent No.1 and direct the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith;