Chain snatchers can be detained under Dangerous Activities Act: Bombay HC | Mumbai news - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

Chain snatchers can be detained under Dangerous Activities Act: Bombay HC

ByK A Y Dodhiya, Mumbai
Feb 19, 2020 12:53 AM IST

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay high court (HC) observed that chain snatching has caused deaths of women, and thus, habitual offenders can be preventively detained under the Dangerous Activities Act.

HT Image
HT Image

The order, passed earlier this month and made public on February 12, was based on a petition filed by 26-year-old Rajendra Chandol, who challenged a one-year detention order issued by the Cidco police station in Aurangabad, after five first information reports (FIRs) were registered against him. Chandol had claimed that as preventive detention can only be for 12 days, the one-year detention order was against his rights, and thus, should be quashed.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

The division bench of justice TV Nalawade and justice MG Sewlikar was informed by advocate SD Hiwrekar that the detention order was passed against Chandol, his client, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981, on September 27 last year. Initially, a chapter case had been passed against him under section 110 (e)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the authority probing the case had formed an opinion that a preventive action such as a chapter proceeding (obtaining a bond from a citizen seeking good behaviour) may be futile, as the petitioner may continue to indulge in dangerous activities and thus an action under MPDA Act, 1981, was initiated against him, following which the chapter proceeding was stayed.

Hiwrekar submitted that even after Chandol was detained, cases of chain snatching continued unabated, and hence, the detention was excessive and should be set aside. He added that as the maximum duration of detention could be only six months, the one-year detention was against detention rules. Responding to the petition, additional public prosecutor DR Kale submitted that the year-long detention order was passed after the advisory board [expert panel probing the provision of detention] agreed that Chandol was a “dangerous person” and hence, should be detained for a longer period. Thus, there was nothing “adverse” in the detention order, he stated.

After hearing the submissions, the bench observed, “It can be said that not only the present petitioner, but some other persons are also involved in such crimes. This circumstance cannot be considered in favour of the person like the petitioner. It [chain snatching] is certainly a dangerous activity and such activities have caused the deaths of some ladies.”

The bench added, “As the incident takes place all of a sudden and persons like the petitioner use force so that ornaments get broken and can be taken away, there is always a danger...the neck may get cut,” and concluded, “The opinion given by the advisory board is consistent with the opinion formed by the police. This court holds that it is not possible to interfere in the detention order...As a result, the criminal writ petition stands dismissed.”

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Friday, March 29, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On