Bombay High Court: The present petition was filed by the petitioner, father of the detenue, Shahabaz Ahmed Mohammad Yusuf, wherein the detention order dated 30-7-2024 issued by Respondent 2, the District Magistrate, Nashik, was challenged. The Division Bench of Sarang v. Kotwal* and S.M. Modak, JJ., held that as the detenue was only conversant with the Urdu language, it was important for the detaining authority to have served him with the Urdu translation of the Marathi in-camera statements, which was not done. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 30-7-2024.
The detention order in the present case was passed under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (‘MPDA Act’) and vide a separate committal order, the petitioner was directed to be detained in Nashik Central Prison. The detenue was served with the grounds of detention and there was a list of nine registered offences at Pawarwadi Police Station, Ramjanpura Police Station, Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon City Police Station, and Malegaon Camp Police Station between the years 2018 to 2020.
There was reference of two preventive actions in the grounds and the detention order was based on a case registered at Ayesha Nagar Police Station under Sections 3951, 1432, 1473, 3234, 3245, and 5066 of the Penal Code, 1860 and two in-camera statements of the Witnesses A and B. The detaining authority, based on the said materials, recorded his finding that the detenue was a ‘dangerous person’ within the meaning of the MPDA Act and he needed to be detained. Thus, the detention order dated 30-7-2024 was passed.
Counsel for the petitioner challenged the said order on two grounds, first, that the detention order was not passed promptly, and no urgency was shown by the detaining authority or the sponsoring authority in initiating this action and second, that the detenue was not served with the in-camera statements at all. Whereas on behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the original Marathi in-camera statements were furnished to the detenue and there was signature of the detenue showing that those statements were furnished. However, it was stated that those Marathi statements were not translated into Urdu and thus, the detenue was not furnished with in-camera statements in Urdu language with which he was conversant.
The Court stated that the Authorities failed to explain as to why the detention order was not passed expeditiously, showing sufficient urgency. The Court noted that the petitioner was only conversant with the Urdu language, and it was by the detaining authority as Urdu translation of the detention order and the grounds of the detention were translated into Urdu and were served on the detenue.
The Court held that it was important for the detaining authority to have served the detenue with the Urdu translation of the Marathi in-camera statements, which was not done. The Court opined that the detenue was 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. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 30-7-2024.
[Mohammad Yusuf v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 720, decided on 21-3-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Aisha Z. Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioner
For the Respondents: S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State
1. Corresponding Section
2. Section 189(2) of BNS, 2023
3. Section 191(2) of BNS, 2023
4. Section 115(2) of BNS, 2023
