High Court
Legal Reasoning
WP-1026-24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1026 OF 2024Vaibhav @ Swapnil Balasaheb ShelkeAge: 22 years, Occu.: Business,R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Beed,Tq. & Dist. Beed..PETITIONERVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, 2nd Floor, Mantralaya, Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai2. The District Collector Collector Office, Beed3. Police Superintendent Office of the Superintendent of Police, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer Officer of SDPO, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed5. The Police Inspector Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Beed Tq. & Dist. Beed..RESPONDENTS....Mr. N.K. Tungar, Advocate for petitionerMr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for respondents....CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.RESERVED ON : 02nd AUGUST, 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 14th AUGUST, 20241 / 8 WP-1026-24.odtJUDGMENT ( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) :1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with theconsent of learned counsel for the parties.2.The challenge in this writ petition, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, is to order dated 30th April, 2024 passed by RespondentNo.2 - District Collector, Beed in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of theMaharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers,Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers andPersons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981(‘MPDA Act’), detaining the petitioner for a period of twelve months so as toprevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to maintenance of publicorder. The order of detention has been confirmed by Respondent No.1 -State of Maharashtra in Ministry of Home on 24th June, 2024.3.The challenge to the order impugned herein is mainly on theground of delay in passing the order i.e. no proximity between the last crimeregistered against the petitioner and the order of detention. According tolearned counsel for the petitioner, the so called in-camera statements havebeen recorded only with a view to bridge the said gap. Those statementseven though accepted as it is, are as vague as it could be. The petitioner’sacts against those persons were individual centric. Although total six crimeswere registered against the petitioner, only last two crimes have been relied2 / 8 WP-1026-24.odton. Reference to earlier four crimes would, therefore, indicate the detainingauthority to have been influenced thereby. According to learned counsel, thepetitioner was merely present at the spot while the last two crimes tookplace. Not less than 200 persons were involved in commission of saidcrimes. Those crimes have political overtures. According to learnedcounsel, the petitioner is behind the bars for about four months. He is justtwenty-two years of age. He, therefore, urged for allowing the writ petition.4.Learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, took us through theaffidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority to submit that graph ofcriminal activities of the petitioner was ascending. Victims of the petitioner’scriminal activities even do not come forward to report against him, so is theterror of him. Last two crimes relied on would indicate that public propertieswere damaged. Hotels and shops were set on fire. Those crimesnecessarily have ramification of causing disturbance to maintenance ofpublic order. Even a preventive action taken against the petitioner underSection 110 of the Cr.P.C. did not yield result. It was, therefore, foundincumbent to take action against the petitioner impugned herein. LearnedA.P.P. relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of PhulwariJagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R.H. Mendonca, 2000 AIR (SC) 2527 tosubmit that in-camera statements could be relied on for passing of detentionorder. According to him, the grounds of detention were separable. He,therefore, referred to Section 5A of the MPDA Act. Even one of the groundswas found to be not fit to have resort thereto for passing the impugned order,3 / 8 WP-1026-24.odtthe order is sustainable on other grounds. He, therefore, urged for dismissalof the petition.5.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the orderimpugned herein and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority.6.Detention order dated 30th April, 2024 refers six crimes registeredagainst the petitioner (Para 3.1) and one preventive action taken underSection 110 of Cr.P.C. (Para 3.2). In paragraph no.4 of the said order, thedetaining authority has specifically observed that last two crimes, C.R. Nos.341 of 2023 and 577 of 2023 were registered on 31st October, 2023 for theoffences punishable under Sections 307, 308, 120-B, 353, 332, 435, 436,427, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506, 151 and 152 of the I.P.C., Section 7 ofCriminal Law Amendment Act, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage toPublic Property Act, Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of MaharashtraPolice Act and Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, have beenconsidered besides two in-camera statements for detaining the petitioner fora period of twelve months. The order then records averments in the F.I.R.lodged by the police officer/s in relation to those crimes.7.We have perused the F.I.R. and the related papers in relation toboth the crimes to find in first crime, the persons involved were not less than200. Most of them were unknown. While in the second crime, those werenot less than 1500. Those, who could be identified, have been named in the4 / 8
Legal Reasoning
WP-1026-24.odtcharge-sheet. Both the crimes took place on one and the same day. Thecause of commission of those crimes indicate that there was Andolan fordemand of reservation for members of Maratha community. Necessarily,those crimes appear to have political overtures. To point out the query madeby this Court to learned A.P.P. as to whether similar action has been takenagainst those who have been identified as culprits, it was informed that thepolice authorities are in process of initiating such action. Same indicates thatthe present action has been taken selectively. The informant did not knowname of the petitioner. It was only when a video shoot of the incident waswatched, involvement of the petitioner was surfaced. It is true, this Court isless concerned with the sufficiency or insufficiency of the material relied onfor passing of the impugned order. The record, however indicates that thepetitioner was involved in one of those two crimes as he was seen runningfrom the mob. He was not attributed with any of the overt acts in relation tothe said crime.8.Both those crimes took place on the last day of October 2023,whereas the proposal for detention of the petitioner was moved on 20th April,2024 i.e. about six months after those crimes were registered. Sameindicates that there was no live link between the order of detention and thosetwo crimes registered against the petitioner.9.Learned counsel for the petitioner was, therefore, right insubmitting that the in-camera statements of the witnesses recorded in5 / 8 WP-1026-24.odtbetween the said period were recorded only with a view to bridge the gapand make out a case of live link. We have perused those in-camerastatements. The first one is recorded on 05th April 2024. The witness ‘A’therein stated that on one day in February 2024 at 01:00 p.m. the petitionermet him at Rajiv Gandhi Chowk and made a demand of Rs.50,000/-. Whenthe witness informed the petitioner to have no money with him, the petitionerrobbed the witness of Rs.4,500/- at knife point. The petitioner threatened thesaid witness of dire consequences if he disclosed said incident to the police.According to the witness, having seen the incident, shop owners downed theshutters due to the petitioner’s fear and terror.10.Witness ‘B’, in relation to the second in-camera statement dated07th April, 2024 stated that on one day in March 2024 by 06:00 p.m. he wason his way. In front of Surya Lawns, the petitioner intercepted him and madea demand of Rs.20,000/-. When he told the petitioner to have no money, thepetitioner forcibly took out Rs.6,500/- from his pocket. The petitioner raisedshouts. No one came to his help. The passersby, who witnessed theincident, ran away fearing the petitioner.11.Learned A.P.P. was right in submitting that the in-camerastatements can be relied on for passing the detention order. He even hasrightly relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Phulwari Pathak(supra) in that regard.6 / 8 WP-1026-24.odt12.On close look at the chart, wherein there is reference to thecrimes registered against the petitioner is concerned, we find not a singleoffence thereof pertain to extortion or robbery punishable under Sections 387or 392 of the I.P.C. It is, therefore, just difficult to rely on the in-camerastatements as it is. When the petitioner had no history of committing suchcrimes, how come he would intercept two witnesses and rob them of money.Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, had every reason to contendthat those in-camera statements were recorded only with a view to bridge thegap between last two crimes registered against the petitioner and order ofdetention. He meant to say that just to create live link between the two, in-camera statements were recorded. We find substance in the submission oflearned counsel for the petitioner.13.The copy supplied to the petitioner of the in-camera statements donot contain day or date of the incident allegedly committed by him. Sameappears to have caused the petitioner prejudice in his defence to meet thosestatements. Be that as it may. We find no live link between the last twocrimes registered against the petitioner under I.P.C. and the impugned order.Only with a view to make out a live link, in-camera statements appear tohave been recorded. True, the grounds of detention are separable (Section5A of the MPDA Act). In the order of detention it has not been so observed.In the Marathi version of order of detention, there is reference of a chaptercase initiated against the petitioner under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., while in theEnglish version thereof, it is recorded as Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Then it7 / 8 WP-1026-24.odtwould be anybody’s guess as to whether really chapter case under Section110 of Cr.P.C. was initiated against the petitioner and the bond of goodbehaviour obtained from him. No papers relating to the said chapter casewere supplied to the petitioner. The same too amounts to non-supply ofgrounds of detention or all the material relied on for passing of the orderimpugned herein. For all these reasons, we find interference with the orderimpugned herein to have been warranted.14. In the result, criminal writ petition is allowed. Impugned order ofdetention of the petitioner dated 30th April, 2024 passed by Respondent No.2- District Collector, Beed and confirmation order dated 24th June, 2024passed by Respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra in Ministry of Home areset aside. The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any othercase. Rule is made absolute.( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD8 / 8