In a recent court decision, Avinash Gopal Shilimkar's request to cancel his detention was turned down. The decision, made by Judges Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale and A.S. Gadkari, confirmed that the detention order was correctly carried out under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.
Avinash Shilimkar, aged 23, was detained under an order issued on December 26, 2024. This order was based on his involvement in activities considered dangerous under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. He challenged his detention by arguing that the secret witness statements were not checked by the person in charge of approving the detention.
Shilimkar's lawyer, Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, argued that the secret statements from witnesses 'A' and 'B' were only checked by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, not the person responsible for approving the detention. He referred to a Supreme Court case to support the claim that this verification was important for the detention order to be valid.
"Secret statements should have been personally checked by the person responsible for approving the detention," argued Vakharia.
The State, represented by Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, argued that the secret statements were indeed checked and included in the reasons for detention. They argued that the Assistant Commissioner's check was enough and followed legal rules.
"The reasonableness of the satisfaction of the person approving the detention cannot be questioned," stated the State's lawyer.
The court looked at all documents, including the secret statements and their verification. It found that the Assistant Commissioner had thoroughly checked the statements, talking with witnesses and confirming their truthfulness.
"Checking by the Assistant Commissioner of Police follows the procedure and meets the legal requirements," noted the judges.
The court decided that the detention order was valid and that the satisfaction of the person approving the detention was based on solid evidence. The process of checking was considered enough, and the request was dismissed.
"In view thereof, it is not necessary that the verification of the secret statements has to be personally done by the person responsible for approving the detention," the decision read.
This decision emphasizes the rules for detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, highlighting the importance of senior police checks in supporting such orders.
