High Court
Legal Reasoning
wp-887-2025-J.odtappellate Court, but we are considering these facts to arrive at aconclusion as to whether there was material before the detainingauthority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction. When these documentswere not perused by the detaining authority, we hold that there was nosubjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in the presentcase before passing the impugned order.9.Further, as regards the statements of in-camera witnesses ‘A’ and‘B’ are concerned, the incident in both the cases would show thatgeneral public was not involved. At the most law and order situationwould have been created and not the public order.10.Thus, taking into consideration the above observations and thedecisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, at the most, the statements as wellas the offences allegedly committed would reveal that the petitioner hadcreated law and order situation and not disturbance to the public order.Though the Advisory Board had approved the detention of the petitioner,yet we are of the opinion that there was no material before the detainingauthority to categorize the petitioner as a dangerous person orbootlegger. 11.For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.Hence, following order is passed :-[7] wp-887-2025-J.odtORDERI)The Writ Petition stands allowed.II)The detention order dated 07.11.2024 bearing No.2024/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-64 passed by respondent No.1 as well as theapproval order dated 14.11.2024 and the confirmation order dated07.01.2025 passed by respondent No.3, are hereby quashed andset aside.III)Petitioner – Ajay Bhagwan Jogdand shall be releasedforthwith, if not required in any other offence.IV)Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[8]
Arguments
wp-887-2025-J.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.887 OF 2025Ajay Bhagwan JogdandAge: 40 years, Occu.: Agri.,R/o. Ghodka Rajuri, presently atNear Bankatswami College,Jalna Road, Nanded. .. PetitionerVersus1.The District Magistrate,Nanded.2.Superintendent of Police,Nanded.3.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Secretary Home Department (Spl.) Mantralaya,Mumbai.4.The Superintendent AurangabadCentral Prison, Aurangabad. .. Respondents…Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosle, Advocate for the petitioner.Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for the respondents/State.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE : 29 JULY 2025JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) .Heard learned Advocate Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosle for the petitionerand learned APP Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar for the respondents – State.[1] wp-887-2025-J.odt2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finallywith the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.3.The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 07.11.2024bearing No.2024/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-64 passed by respondentNo.1 as well as the approval order dated 14.11.2024 and theconfirmation order dated 07.01.2025 passed by respondent No.3, byinvoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia.4.Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through theimpugned orders and the material which was supplied to the petitionerby the detaining authority after passing of the order. He submits thatthough several offences were registered against the petitioner, yet forthe purpose of passing the impugned order, only one offence wasconsidered i.e. Crime No.615 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024 registered withNanded Rural Police Station, District Nanded for the offence punishableunder Section 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. LearnedAdvocate for the petitioner submitted that the proposal was submitted bythe sponsoring authority on 06.08.2024. Thereafter, the said proposalwas forwarded by Sub Divisional Police Officer to Superintendent ofPolice and Superintendent of Police had then forwarded the proposal tothe detaining authority on 19.08.2024. Thereafter, the detention order[2] wp-887-2025-J.odthas been passed on 07.11.2024 Therefore, there is inordinate delay ofthree months. The detaining authority has committed error incategorizing the petitioner as dangerous person only on the basis of oneoffence. In that offence also the petitioner was not arrested but noticeunder Section 41(A)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issuedagainst him. The only offence that was considered for passing thedetention order and the two in-camera statements would at the mostcreate law and order situation and not the public order and, therefore,the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5.Per contra, the learned APP strongly supports the action takenagainst the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a dangerousperson as defined under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activitiesof Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons andVideo Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPDA Act”). Thedetaining authority has relied on the two in-camera statements and thesubjective satisfaction has been arrived at. There is no illegality in theprocedure adopted while recording the in-camera statements of thewitnesses. Due to the terror created by the petitioner, people are notcoming forward to lodge report against him and, therefore, it affects thepublic order. Learned APP relied on the affidavit-in-reply of Mr. AbhijitRaut, the District Magistrate, Nanded/detaining authority. He supportsthe detention order passed by him and tries to demonstrate as to how he[3] wp-887-2025-J.odthad arrived at the subjective satisfaction. He further states that his orderhas been approved by the State Government and also by the AdvisoryBoard. Learned APP submits that in spite of involvement of the petitionerin so many cases, his criminal activities have not been curtailed. Thecriminal antecedents can be taken into consideration for passing thedetention order. There is no illegality or error committed by the learnedDistrict Magistrate in holding the petitioner as a dangerous person.Therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order.6.Before considering the case, we would like to take note of thelegal position as is emerging in the following decisions :-(i) Nenavath Bujji etc. Vs. State of Telangana and others,[2024 SCC OnLine SC 367], (ii)Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Ors.,[2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743]; (iii) Kanu Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal, [1972 (3) SCC831] wherein reference was made to the decision in Dr. RamManohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [1966 (1) SCR 709];(iv)Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M.M. Mehta, [1995(3) SCC 237];(v)Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. The State of WestBengal, [AIR 1970 SC 852];[4] wp-887-2025-J.odt(vi) Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R. H. Mendoncaand Ors., (2000 (6) SCC 751) and;(vii)Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, [(1981) 4 SCC 647].7.Taking into consideration the legal position as summarized above,it is to be noted herein as to whether the detaining authority whilepassing the impugned order had arrived at the subjective satisfactionand whether the procedure as contemplated has been complied with ornot. In Nenavath Bujji (Supra) itself it has been reiterated by theHon’ble Supreme Court that illegal detention orders cannot be sustainedand, therefore, strict compliance is required to be made, as it is aquestion of liberty of a citizen. At the outset, it is to be noted that thestatements of in-camera witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ are taken on 05.08.2024.The proposal was then submitted by the sponsoring authority on06.08.2024. It appears that the confidential statements came to beverified on 09.08.2024. The Sub Divisional Police Officer has forwardedthe said proposal to the Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2024.Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police had forwarded the said proposalto the detaining authority on 19.08.2024 and the detention order hasbeen passed on 07.11.2024. That means, there is delay of three monthsin passing the detention order. The affidavit-in-reply by Mr. Abhijit Raut,the District Magistrate, Nanded/detaining authority, is totally silent on the[5] wp-887-2025-J.odtpoint of delay. This ground alone is sufficient to set aside the detentionorder. 8.The offence, which was considered for passing the detention orderis Crime No.615 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024 for the offence under Section4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The contents of the FIRwould show that on 16.07.2024, when police officers were on patrollingduty at Dhavale Corner CIDCO, Nanded at about 14.20 hours, a secretinformation was received that a 20 to 22 years old suspicious person isstanding near the statue of Annabhau Sathe. Thereafter, the policeofficers along with two panchas went to the spot where they found thepetitioner and upon his search, it is stated that a dagger (Khanjar) havingiron blade of 16 inch and handle of 5 inch was found in his possession.Interestingly, it is stated that the said dagger was found on his waist. It isnot clear as to whether it was concealed inside the clothes or it wasvisible to the public. The matter is still under investigation. Importantpoint to be noted is that Section 4 of the Arms Act requires that theCentral Government should issue Notification regarding prohibition of aweapon in a particular area. That Notification was not placed before thedetaining authority by the sponsoring authority. The detention orderdoes not specifically state that he had gone through such Notification.We are aware that in the present proceedings, we cannot sit as an[6]