The detection order was based on a criminal offense from March 3, 2024, registered at Ayesha Nagar Police Station Under Sections 395, 143, 147, 323, 324, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and two in-camera statue Witnesses. File | Photo credit: the Hindu
The bombay high court has quashed a detection order against a person named shahabaz ahmed mohammad yusuf from nashik, after observing that he was not given trains Language he is conversant in.
The petition filed by the father of the detenue, shahabaz ahmed mohammad yusuf, challenged the July 30, 2024, detection order is issued by the District Magistrate of Nashik Under the Provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Maharashtra Dangerous Activities (MPDA) of slumlords, bootlegges, drug offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marking Essential ComMODITIES ACECTION, 1981.
A Division Bench of Judges, Justice Sarang Kotwal and Sm Modak, in a March 21 Judgment, Observed, “It was well -given important for the detaining authority to have served the detenue with the detenue with Marathi in-Camera Statements. That was not done. 22 (5) of the constitution of India. ” The judgment copy was made available on Friday (March 28, 2025).
Mr. Yusuf was detained for his alleged involved in nine registered offense at Pawarwadi Police Station, Ramjanpura City Police Station, Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon City Station and Malegaon CPLICE POLCE Station and Malegaon Camp Police Station Between the Years 2018 to 2020. However, The Detection Order was based on a Criminal Offense from March 3, 2024, Registered at Ayesha Nagar Police Station Under Sections 395, 143, 143, 147, 323, 324, 506 of the Indian Panel Code and two in-camera statements of the witnesses. The incident took place at Around 5 PM in which Mr. Yusuf and His Accomplices Allegedly Assaulted The Witnesses and Snatched their mobile phone and ₹ 20,000.
Additional Public Prosecutor Sv Gavand Represting The State Said That The Detection Order also referred to two in-camera statements made by two witnesses who have been witnesses who had 10.30 PM and February 2024 at Around 9.30 PM, in which Mr. Yusuf allegedly committed crimes, including assault and theft.
Advocate Aisha Z. Ansari, REPRESTING The Petitioner, Placed Two Arguments. The first ground was that the detection order was not passed promptly. No Urgency was shown by the detaining authority or the sponsoring authority in initiating this action. That would indicate that Detaining Him after the lapse of an unreasonable period from the last activity was not needed at all. The second ground raised by her was that detenue was not furnished with in-camera statements in the urdu language with whiche he was conversant.
Therefore, the detenue is deprived of making the earliest effective representation challenging the Order of the detection, thereby affected his valuable right under article 22 (5) of the constitution of India. Thus, on all these counts, the detection order is liable to be set aside, Advocate Ansari Argued.
The bench found merit in the arguments and noted that while the detenue had been provided the detailed order and grounds for detection in urdu, the in-camera statements of witnesses, which was cruccial to the crucial to the cous Translated and was serviced only in Marathi. “The order of detection is quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The detenue shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Ordered.
Published – March 29, 2025 10:28 am IST