Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Citing Authority’s Failure To Serve Detenue With Urdu Translation Of In-Camera Statements
The petition before the Bombay High Court was filed by the father of the detenue challenging the detention order.
In a case where the detenue was not furnished with the in-camera statements in Urdu language with which he was conversant, the Bombay High Court has quashed the Detention Order passed against him.
The petition before the Bombay High Court was filed by the father of the detenue challenging the detention order.
The Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Modak and Justice Sarang V. Kotwal, said, “In this background, it was equally important for the detaining authority to have served the detenue with the Urdu translation of the Marathi in-camera statements. That was not done. Therefore, the detenue is deprived of making the earliest effective representation challenging the order of the detention, thereby affecting his valuable right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of the India.”
Advocate Aisha Z. Ansari represented the Petitioner, while APP S. V. Gavand represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The detention order was passed under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981(M.P.D.A.). The date of the detention is July 30, 2024.
The detenue was served with the grounds of detention. There was a list of nine registered offences at different Police Stations between the year 2018 to 2020 and there was a reference of two preventive actions in the grounds. The first was an externment proceeding and the other was a chapter case under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In one of the cases, it was alleged that the detenue and his accomplices assaulted the informant and witnesses. The Complainant’s mobile phone and an amount of Rs 20,000 were snatched. The in-camera statement of the Witness-A referred to the incident where the detenue had allegedly forcibly removed Rs. 250 from his pant pocket. The in-camera statement of Witness B referred to the incident in which the witness was assaulted by the detenue and his accomplices. Based on these materials, the detention order was passed.
Reasoning
Referring to the affidavit of the detaining authority, the Bench noticed that no particulars were provided as to what happened between the period of the last activity and passing of the detention order. In-camera statements were recorded on March 15, 2024 and March 17, 2024 and the detention order was passed on July 30, 2024.
The Bench also found that no particulars were provided as to what happened between the period of the last activity and passing of the detention order. Moreover, nothing was explained as to what transpired between April 25, 2024, up to July 29, 2024. The Bench found force in the submission of the Petitioner that the authorities had not shown urgency in passing the detention order if the detenue’s prejudicial activities were so dangerous for the society at large that it affected the public order.
“It is not every delay which by itself vitiates the detention order but unexplained and unreasonable delay certainly can be looked into for considering the sustainability of the detention order”, it said. The Bench also mentioned that the Authorities failed to explain why the detention order was not passed expeditiously, showing sufficient urgency.
One of the arguments raised was that the detenue was not furnished with in-camera statements in the Urdu language with which he was conversant. The Petitioner had stated in the petition that the detenue is conversant only with the Urdu language. This fact was also accepted by the detaining authority as the Urdu translation of the detention order itself and the grounds of the detention translated into Urdu were served on the detenue.
The Bench held that the detenue was deprived of making the earliest effective representation as the detaining authority failed to serve the detenue with the Urdu translation of the Marathi in-camera statements. Thus, quashing the detention order, the Bench directed the detenue to be released.
Cause Title: Mohammad Yusuf v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:14169-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Aisha Z. Ansari
Respondent: APP S. V. Gavand
