High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
6 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is founded on logicalappreciation of material, consideration of the relevant material andapplication of mind. If the subjective satisfaction is tested on thetouchstone of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the latestjudgment in the matter of Nenavath Bujji Etc. Vs. State of Telangana, AIR2024 SC 1610, we do not find any fault with it.11.There are limitation for judicial review of the subjectivesatisfaction. We are not exercising appellate jurisdiction. The appreciationof material or the substitution of the view is impermissible. Learned APPhas rightly submitted that no case is made out to indicate that subjectivesatisfaction is arbitrary, ex facie perverse or grossly unreasonable.12.Though specific grounds have not been raised by the petitioner inthe petition regarding statutory compliance, we have examined the matterfrom that angle also. Last offence was registered against the petitioner on19.12.2023. In-camera statements were recorded on 21.12.2023. They wereverified on next day. Impugned order was passed on 28.12.2023. We find nodelay in passing impugned order.13.After passing impugned order, it was approved under Section 3(3) ofthe act on 05.01.2024, which is within period of 12 days. Impugned orderwas confirmed on 21.02.2024. We find that there is due compliance ofSection 8, 10 and 11.14.The above analysis would indicate that no case is made out to upset 7 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc the impugned orders. We, therefore, dismiss the Criminal Writ Petition.Rule is discharged. SHAILESH P. BRAHME MANGESH S. PATIL JUDGE JUDGE NaJeeb…
Arguments
1 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No. 576 / 2024Sayyed Junaid Sayyed Abdul QadeerAge : 22 years, Occu. Labour,R/o Near Badi Masjid, Azam Colony,Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ...PetitionerVersus1.State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary, Home Department (Special),Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The District Collector,Hingoli.3.Sub-Divisional Police Officer,Sub-Division Hingoli (Rural)Dist. Hingoli.4.Police Inspector,Police Station Hingoli (Rural),Tq. And Dist. Hingoli.5.The Superintendent of Jail,Harsul Central Prison,Aurangabad. ..Respondents _ _ _Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S.E. Shekade A.P.P. for Respondents /State : Ms. V.N. Patil-Jadhav _ _ _ 2 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. RESERVED ON : 7 MAY 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 10 MAY 2024 APRIL 2JUDGMENT [Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sidesfinally with their consent at the admission stage.2.We are called upon to examine order dated 20.12.2023 passed by therespondent no.2/detaining authority and order of confirmation dated21.02.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 under the provisions ofMaharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers,Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglersand Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities ActAct, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act for the sake of brevityand convenience). The petitioner is held to be dangerous person on thebasis of two offences and two in-camera statements. 3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail impugned order onthe ground that the subjective satisfaction is arbitrary. He would point outFIR of both the offences to demonstrate that the allegations are notserious in nature and would not constitute any prejudice to public order.He would point out that in both the offences the petitioner was servedwith notice under Section 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C. which would indicate that evenhe was not required to be arrested. He would further point out that 3 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc externment proposal was cancelled without assigning any reason. Hewould submit that in-camera statements of anonymous witnesses areliable to be discarded as they are not verified by the detaining authorityand they are chance witnesses. According to learned Counsel there is nomaterial to indicate that the activities of the petitioner are detrimental topublic order.4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks reliance on the judgmentrendered by the Division Bench in the matter of Ashokrao s/o UttamraoPawar & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal WritPetition No.738/2022.5.Learned APP would support the impugned orders on the basis ofaffidavit-in-reply of the respondent no.2. She submits that all the relevantmaterial has been taken into account weeding out extraneous material bythe detaining authority. It is further submitted that in a writ jurisdictionthere is very limited scope for judicial revenue of the subjectivesatisfaction. She would submit that statements of the anonymouswitnesses were verified by a higher police officer and the detainingauthority has properly dealt with this aspect in the order of detention.She would submit that the purport of notice under Section 41(A)(1) hasbeen considered by this Court in the matter of Vinod Dhannulal JaiswalVs. District Magistrate, Aurangabad and Ors., AIR Online 2024 Bom 105. Itis further submitted that due statutory compliances and time line havebeen followed by the respondents. 4 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc 6.Having considered rival submissions and having gone through thepapers, at the outset we have to clarify that the petitioner seeks tochallenge impugned order on subjective satisfaction of the detainingauthority. We had an occasion to deal with purport of service of noticeunder Section 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C. on the detenue in the matter of VinodDhannulal Jaiswal (supra). In that judgment it has been held specially inparagraph no.35 and 36 that service of notice under Section 41(A)(1) on thedetenue instead of his arrest would not be mitigating factor. We aretherefore not inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioner in thisregard.7.The FIR in C.R. No.501/2023 was registered against the petitioner foroffence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 185 of theMotor Vehicles Act on 08.10.2023. Another C.R. No.674/2023 was registeredunder Sections 341, 385, 323, 504, 506 of IPC on 19.12.2023. It is thesubmission of the petitioner that both the offences do not disclose anydanger to the public order and the ordinary penal law would be sufficientto deal with them. In the first offence petitioner was found drunk whiledriving vehicle and he was holding a dagger. In another offence, he wasfound to be involved in robbery and assault. The last offence would fallunder Chapter XVI and XVII of IPC. Both the offences are covered bydefinition of Section 2(b)(1) of ‘dangerous person’. We cannot examine theveracity of the allegations.8.We have considered both the in-camera statements recorded on 5 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc 21.12.2023. In the statement of witness-A it is stated that the petitionerwas in habit of extracting money from random people. The witness wasaccosted and demanded money, has was abused and slapped. Anotherwitness-B would also state on the same line. He cites instance of pickpocketing of the petitioner. We find that there is no animosity of thepetitioner with the witnesses but still he is found to have indulged in theoveract of extracting money and abused and assaulted ordinary people.We find that both the statements have been verified by Sub-DivisionalPolice Officer on 22.12.2023. The detaining authority has recorded specificfinding in paragraph no.12 of the grounds of detention, verifyingreliability of the statements. Additionally we find that the detainingauthority has explained in paragraph no.12 and 13 of reply that both thestatements have been duly verified and the subjective satisfaction has beenarrived at. We find that both the statements are reliable.9.In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on thejudgment of Ashokrao s/o Uttamrao Pawar & Another (supra). We haveconsidered paragraph no.20 of the judgment. It is distinguishable on facts.In the case in hand not only detaining authority has recorded satisfactionin the grounds of detention but also reaffirmed in affidavit-in-reply. Wefind no merit in the submission of the petitioner.10.It transpires from record that the cumulative effect of offencespitted against the petitioner and in-camera statements is that thepetitioner is a habitual offender and he has created terror in the vicinity.