High Court
Legal Reasoning
1Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 311 OF 2025Maharudra @ Aba Narayan MuleAge 40 years, Occupation: Agril, R/o. Ghodka Rajuri, presently at Near Bankatswami College,Jalna Road, BEED.... PetitionerVersus1.The District Magistrate,BEED.2. Superintendent of PoliceBEED.3.The State of Maharashtra(Through the Secretary Home Department (Spl) Mantralaya, Mumbai.4.The Superintendent AurangabadCentral Prison, Aurangabad.... Respondents…Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosle, Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondents.…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :06th May, 2025. 2Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtJ U D G M E N T : (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.) . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition isheard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.2By invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order ofdetention order dated 14th November, 2024 bearing No.2024/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-19 passed by respondent No.1 under Sections3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities ofSlumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, VideoPirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing ofEssential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the“MPDA Act”).3The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out theimpugned order and the material, which was relied upon and suppliedto the petitioner by the detaining authority at the time of passing of theimpugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed outthe grounds of detention in the impugned order, as per the followingcharts:- 3Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtOffencesSr.No.PoliceStationCri. No.SectionDate ofregistrationCharge-Sheet No.Court caseNo.Status1PethBeed15/2021353, 332, 328, 201, 188, 272, 273, 34 IPC25/01/202148/2022 18/06/2022RCC No. 378/2022 Dt. 21/06/2022Pending inCourt.2Pimpalner197/2021272, 273, 328, IPC r.w. sec.130(3)/177 of Motor Vehicles Act15/09/202123/202211/02/2022S.C. No. 125/2022 Dt. 19/07/2022Pending inCourt.3Neknoor241/2021328, 272, 273, 34 IPC14/10/202110/2022 07/02/2022SC No. 34/2024 Dt. 07/03/2024Pending inCourt.4Pimpalner46/2023328, 272, 273 IPC21/03/202367/202326/07/2023RCC No. 459/2023 Dt. 02/08/2023Pending inCourt.5Neknoor280/2023328, 272, 273, 34 IPC18/09/202371/202419/07/2024RCC No. 382/2024 Dt. 24/07/2024Pending inCourt.6Dindrud145/2024123, 223, 274, 275, 3(5) BNS14/07/2024------Oninvestigation7BeedRural291/2024123, 223, 274, 275, 3(5) BNS10/09/2024------OninvestigationPreventive ActionSr. No.Police StationChapter Case No.SectionDateRemarks01Pimpalner04/2022110 Cr.P.C.17/06/2022Final bond02Sirsala02/2024110 Cr.P.C.13/01/2024Final bondOffences considered for passing Detention OrderSr.No.PoliceStationCri. No.SectionDate ofregistrationCharge-Sheet No.Court caseNo.Status01Dindrud145/2024123, 223, 274, 275, 3(5) BNS14/07/2024------Oninvestigation02BeedRural291/2024123, 223, 274, 275, 3(5) BNS10/09/2024------Oninvestigation 4Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odt4The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out thegrounds of objections raised in the petition and submitted that thedetaining authority has not arrived at the subjective satisfaction as thetwo in-camera statements are certainly not establishing the issue ofthreat to public order on the part of the petitioner. The detainingauthority has passed the detention order mechanically and in a casualmanner and has not applied the mind properly while passing thedetention order and did not arrive at the subjective satisfaction as tothe statements of in-camera witnesses. The authority also did notconsider the reasons stated in the order passed by the Courts whilegranting bail to the petitioner. The crimes registered against thepetitioner are not showing that he is an habitual offender. The actionof the detaining authority is drastic, illegal and not sustainable in theeyes of law, as it causes injustice to the petitioner. There is inordinatedelay caused for taking action against the petitioner, which shows thatthere is no such issue of public order. The essential ingredients ofSection 3(2) of the MPDA Act are not establishing against thepetitioner. He is not a dangerous person as defined under the MPDAAct. The issue of public order is not establishing from the crimesupon which the action is taken against the petitioner. No action forcancellation of bail is taken against the petitioner. The action takenagainst the petitioner is against the provisions of the MPDA Act as
Decision
5Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtwell as Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The circumstancesand reasons given by the concerned authority are not acceptable andsustainable in the eyes of law. The authority concerned failed toconsider the material aspects in its proper perspectives while passingthe impugned order. It is lastly prayed to allow the writ petition byquashing and setting aside the impugned order. 5The learned APP for the respondents submitted that thepetitioner is a ‘dangerous person’ as defined under the MPDA Act.There are two in-camera statements of the witnesses about which thesubjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the detaining authority.There is neither legal nor factual error on the part of the detainingauthority while recording the in-camera statements of the witnesses.The petitioner has created grave terror in the surrounding area.Therefore, general people are not ready to proceed against him bylodging the report for taking criminal action which can be seen fromthe in-camera statement A & B witnesses. This is sufficient to holdthat because of the petitioner, there is an issue of public order in thearea in which criminal activities of the petitioner are going on. Nodelay is caused in taking the action and passing the impugned order.The petitioner is involved in number of crimes, which are serious.Therefore, he comes under the category of dangerous person as per 6Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtthe MPDA Act. The activities of the petitioner could not have beenstopped, except upon his detention under the MPDA Act. No legal orfactual error is committed by the detaining authority while passing theimpugned order. He, therefore, lastly prayed to dismiss the writpetition. 6We have perused the impugned order of detention andthe grounds upon which it is based as well as the objections raised bythe petitioner in the petition.7From the impugned order, it reveals that the action istaken against the petitioner on the basis of two crimes, which areregistered as C.R. No.145 of 2024, for the offences punishable underSections 123, 223, 274, 275 and 3(5) of the BNS and C.R. No.291 of2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 223, 274, 275and 3(5) of the BNS. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner isreleased on bail in these two crimes. The concerned investigatingofficer or the detaining authority did not try to cancel the bail grantedto the petitioner. The bail orders are not considered by therespondents / authority while deciding the issue of public order. 8On perusal of the statements of the in-camera witnesses, 7Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtit reveals that Witness-A was threatened by the petitioner with thehelp of pistol, which he had concealed inside his shirt and fastened tohis waist. The petitioner placed the pistol against the temple ofWitness-A and accused him of providing information to the policeabout his Gutkha business, due to which the police had been chasinghim. The petitioner alleged that Witness-A was a police informant andbecause of him, Gutkha worth lakhs of rupees had been seized by theauthorities, and he had previously been arrested. The petitionerthreatened that he would not let Witness-A live that day. Thepetitioner assaulted Witness-A by kicks and fist blows. Witness-Amade hue and cry, however, no one came to his aid. 9The statement of Witness-B discloses that the petitionersaid to him “Why don’t you come to work on my Gutkha deliveryvehicle for Rs.300/- per day? Don’t you understand Marathi? Fromtomorrow onwards, come and work on the Gutkha delivery vehicle.”Witness-B refused by saying that currently he is working under amason at a construction site for Rs.600/- per day and that it was notfeasible for him to work for Rs.300/- per day. Upon this, the petitionergot angry, took out a small pistol, which he had concealed at his waist,and showed it to Witness-B. The petitioner said, “If you do not cometo work from tomorrow, I will shoot and kill you.” Seeing the pistol, 8Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtWitness-B got frightened, started sweating, and told him that I wouldcome to work. At that moment, the petitioner also kicked him once.That time, Witness-B fell down and that got up and ran away. 10From these two in-camera statements, it is not revealedthat the petitioner created an issue of public order. The allegations inthe said crimes and the in-camera statements are of personal nature,which do not establish the essential ingredients of Section 3(2) of theMPDA Act. Further, though it is alleged and held that there was anissue of public order due to fear of the petitioner, it is not establishedeither from the said two cases / crimes or from the in-camerastatements that the criminal activities of the petitioner were creatingan issue of public order. Thus, from all the documents relied upon bythe detaining authority, we are of the view that the material uponwhich the authority relied and arrived at a conclusion, is not sufficientto arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is adangerous person for the public at large and because of him, there isconstant fear and issue of public order arose.11In the case of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M.M.Mehta, [1995 (3) SCC 237], the statements of in-camera witnesseswere not accepted as those anti-social activities amounting to public 9Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtorder issue was not proved against the petitioner. As per the law laiddown in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Tamilnaduand Ors., [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743], the fairness and reasonablenesson the part of the detaining authority is lacking. The detainingauthority has failed to apply the criteria that the acts of the petitionerare dangerous and it affects the public order, which is different fromthe law and order. The acts of the petitioner did not causedisturbance to the current life of the public at large, so as to causedisturbance of public order. On the contrary, the record shows that itmerely affects on the individual living and the tranquility of the societyat large remained undisturbed as held in the case of Kanu BiswasVs. State of West Bengal, [1972 (3) SCC 831], wherein a referencewas made to the decision in the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs.State of Bihar and Ors. [1966 (1) SCR 709].12Therefore, we are of the view that the detaining authorityhas failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with the Section 3 ofthe MPDA Act. The authority has not acted as per the provisions ofthe MPDA Act.13Though the impugned order has been approved by theAdvisory Board, we are of the view that it has not considered the 10Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtabove foundational factual aspects as held in the case of Smt.Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another,[(1981) 4 SCC 647]. 14Further, the statements of in-camera witnesses arerecorded on 29th October, 2024 and 31st October, 2024. The proposalwas sent by the concerned authority on 5th November, 2024. TheSDPO forwarded the same on 8th November, 2024. The statementsof in-camera statements were verified on 8th November, 2024. TheSP forwarded the same on 10th November, 2024. The detention orderwas passed on 14th November, 2024. It was served on 5th December,2024. This shows that there is delay of approximately three weeks.The grounds of detention were served on the same day and the reportwas sent to the Statement Government on 18th December, 2024. Itwas sent within 12 days from the date of issuance of the detentionorder. The approval order was passed by the Statement Governmenton 25th December, 2024. Prior to that, the matter was referred to theAdvisory Board and the Advisory Board passed the order on 12thDecember, 2024. The matter was kept before the Advisory Board on16th December, 2024. The petitioner was heard by the Advisory Boardon 6th January, 2025. The date of confirmation of the detention orderwas 17th January, 2025. The representation of the petitioner was 11Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odtforwarded on 31st January, 2025. Remarks were called from thedetaining authority on 3rd February, 2025. Remarks of the detainingauthority were submitted on 24th February, 2025. The Additional ChiefSecretary (Home) considered the remarks and rejected therepresentation on 3rd March, 2025. If the period required forprocessing of the action and passing of the impugned order andgranting of the approval etc. is considered, then there is unreasonabledelay which creates reasonable doubt about existence of public orderon the part of the petitioner. From the dates discussed above, thereappears no need of taking urgent action to secure object ofmaintaining public order against the petitioner to control his activities,which affects the public at large and create an issue of public order ascontemplated by MPDA Act.15Considering all these aspects and the reasons discussedabove as well as the law laid down in the above authorities and fromthe criminal cases registered against the petitioner relied upon by therespondent authority and statements of witnesses A and B, we are ofthe view that the petitioner had not created an issue affecting publicorder. He had not caused disturbance to the public order. He is not adangerous person as per Section 3 of the MPDA Act. 12Writ Petition 311 of 2025.odt16The Advisory Board though approved the detention of thepetitioner, we are of the view that there is no reliable relevant materialto proceed against the petitioner to categorize him as a dangerousperson. By passing the impugned order, the fundamental rights,particularly, the liberty of the petitioner as per Article 21 of theConstitution of India is affected and there is no legal as well as factualground for passing of the impugned order. Therefore, we areconstrained to hold that the impugned order is illegal and notsustainable. The same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Thepetition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The writ petition stands allowed. II.The detention order dated 14.11.2024 bearingNo.2024/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-19 passed byrespondent No.1 as well as the approval order dated25.11.2024 and the confirmation order dated17.01.2025, are hereby quashed and set aside. III.Petitioner – Maharudra @ Aba Narayan Mule shall bereleased forthwith, if not required in any other offence. IV.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ] nga