Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate for the v. K. Kotecha, APP for the
Legal Reasoning
wp-1058-2025-J.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1058 OF 2025Dnyaneshwar alias Mauli Namdev DhandeAge: Adult, R/o. Daithna Bk., Taluka Ghansawangi,District Jalna.. PetitionerVersus1.District Magistrate, Jalna.2.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Secretary Home Department (Spl.), Mantralaya, Mumbai.3.The Superintendent Central PrisonHarsul, Chh. Sambhajinagar.. Respondents…Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for the respondents/State.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.DATE : 03 SEPTEMBER 2025JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) .Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal for the petitionerand learned APP Mr. V. K. Kotecha for respondents – State.2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finallywith the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.[1] wp-1058-2025-J.odt3.The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 19.05.2025bearing No.2025/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA/WS-109 passed by respondentNo.1 as well as the approval order dated 29.05.2025 and theconfirmation order dated 24.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2, byinvoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia.4.Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through theimpugned order and the material which was supplied to the petitioner bythe detaining authority after passing of the order. He submits that for thepurpose of passing the impugned order, the detaining authority hasconsidered all the offences i.e. (i) Crime No.67 of 2025 dated07.02.2025 registered with Ambad Police Station, District Jalna for theoffences punishable under Sections 109, 132, 121(2), 189, 190, 191,352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3 and4 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (ii)Crime No.83 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025 registered with Ambad PoliceStation, District Jalna for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (iii) Crime No.401 of 2018 dated11.12.2018 registered with Ambad Police Station, District Jalna for theoffences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(A)(3), 294, 323, 504read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, (iv) Crime No.848 of 2022dated 16.12.2022 registered with Ambad Police Station, District Jalna for[2]
Decision
wp-1058-2025-J.odtthe offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 452, 354,354(a), 143, 147(2), 148, 149, 504 of Indian Penal Code, under Section3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) and(v) Crime No.178 of 2021 dated 25.04.2021 registered with TalukaJalna Police Station, District Jalna for the offences punishable underSections 353, 379, 188 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,under Sections 3 and 4 of Mines and Minerals Act and under Section 51of Disaster Management Act. Learned Advocate for the petitionersubmits that the detaining authority has considered offences since 2018for passing the detention order on 19.05.2025, which is illegal. Thedetention order suffers from live link. The material placed before thedetaining authority has not been considered by him properly and, therewas no subjective satisfaction arrived at before passing of the order. Hefurther submits that though the petitioner has been released on bail inCrime No.401 of 2018 and Crime No.178 of 2021, which wereconsidered, yet the bail orders have not been considered at all by thedetaining authority. He further submits that as regards statements of in-camera witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ are concerned, the incident in both thecases are personal in nature. At the most law and order situation wouldhave been created. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and cannotbe allowed to sustain. [3] wp-1058-2025-J.odt5.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 relies on the affidavit of Dr. ShrikrishnaPanchal, the District Magistrate, Jalna. He supports the detention orderpassed by him and tries to demonstrate as to how he had arrived at theconclusion that the petitioner is a dangerous person. The subjectivesatisfaction was arrived at on the basis of the in-camera statements andthe contents of the FIRs. After the subjective satisfaction, the detainingauthority has passed a reasoned order, which is then confirmed with theopinion of the Advisory Board and, thereafter, confirmed by the StateGovernment on 24.07.2025. Learned APP submits that in spite ofinvolvement of the petitioner in so many cases his criminal activitieshave not been curtailed. Therefore, no fault can be found in theimpugned order.[4] wp-1058-2025-J.odt6.At the outset, we would like to rely on the decisions of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Nenavath Bujji etc. Vs. State of Telangana andothers, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 367] and Ameena Begum Vs. TheState of Tamilnadu and Ors., [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743]; wherein thedetention law has been summarized and has been said to be draconianmeasure. Further, it has been observed that illegal detention orderscannot be allowed to sustain and, therefore, strict compliance is requiredto be made, as it is a question of liberty of a citizen. At the outset, it is tobe noted that as regards last three offences are concerned i.e. CrimeNo.401 of 2018, Crime No.848 of 2022 and Crime No.178 of 2021, therewas no live link and therefore, these offences cannot be considered forpassing the detention order on 19.05.2025. Now, as regards CrimeNo.67 of 2025 and Crime No.83 of 2025 are concerned, the investigationis pending. Perusal of the contents of both the FIRs would show that atthe most law and order situation would have been created and not thepublic order. It is further to be noted that though in respect of CrimeNo.401 of 2018 and Crime No.178 of 2021 the petitioner has beenreleased on bail by the competent Court, however, the detainingauthority has not considered the bail orders for passing the detentionorder. Here, we would like to rely on the decision in Joyi Kitty JosephVs. Union of India and Ors., [Criminal Appeal No.___ of 2025(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.16893 of 2024)[5] wp-1058-2025-J.odtdecided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.03.2025], wherein ithas been held that “when bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court,that too on conditions, the detaining authority ought to have examinedwhether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence inidentical activities, which is the very basis of the preventive detentionordered.” 7.Perusal of the statements of in-camera witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ wouldshow that the i`ncidents in both the cases are personal in nature andgeneral public is not involved. Those statements would have created atthe most law and order situation and not the public order. 8.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. 9.For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.Hence, following order is passed :-[6] wp-1058-2025-J.odtORDERI)The Writ Petition stands allowed.II)The detention order dated 19.05.2025 bearing No.2025/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA/WS-109 passed by respondent No.1 as well asthe approval order dated 29.05.2025 and the confirmation orderdated 24.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2, are hereby quashedand set aside.III)Petitioner – Dnyaneshwar alias Mauli Namdev Dhande shallbe released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.IV)Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[7]