Threatening an individual to return the loan amount borrowed would pose no threat to public order, the Bombay High Court recently ruled while quashing a detention order issued against a 54-year-old man. The HC further ruled that violation of restraining orders due to a pandemic would not call for a detention order either.
A bench of Judges Sambhaji Shinde and Makarand Karnik has been seized of a request filed by a certain Lakshman Jadhav, a resident of Solapur challenging the detention orders issued against him by the town’s police commissioner.
The HC noted that Jadhav received the detention orders on limited grounds, the very first being a request sent to Solapur’s top policeman by fast track, alleging that the plaintiff (Jadhav) threatened to kill the senior district judge. as well as the police commissioner.
However, the judiciary took into account that apart from the request sent to the chief police officer, there was no other evidence that Jadhav had indeed issued such threats.
Regarding the other reasons the authorities sought to detain Jadhav, the judiciary noted two FIRs highlighted by the police department.
While an FIR concerned an incitement to suicide filed against Jadhav, in which he was accused of threatening a person to repay a loan amount of Rs 70 lakh. The other FIR concerned the violation of restraining orders in which he was convicted of riding a motorcycle amid the pandemic curfew.
After reviewing the claims, the judges said: “We find that Jadhav’s conduct in threatening the deceased to return the money he borrowed may be reprehensible, but it does not fit the situation where one can. say that the community as a whole was to be disturbed or in other words there is a disturbance of public order or a likelihood of disturbance of public order.
“Even with regard to the violation of the District Tax Collector’s prohibition orders, Jadhav was found riding a motorcycle during the pandemic for which an offense against him was recorded and for violating it, the Normal land laws are sufficient to deal with, “the judges ruled.
The magistracy also considered that these two FIRs “are not sufficient to justify such a severe detention measure”.
(To receive our E-paper on WhatsApp daily, please Click here. We allow sharing of the article’s PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)
Posted on: Saturday January 02, 2021 12:15 am IST