High Court
Legal Reasoning
wp-1156-2025-J.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1156 OF 2025Aniket s/o Balaji SuryawanshiAge: 25 years, Occu.: Labour.R/o. Datta Nagar, New Mondha,Nanded, Tq. And Dist. Nanded. .. PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Section Officer,Home Department (Special),Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The District Magistrate,Nanded, Tq. And Dist. Nanded.3.The Superintendent of Jail,Central Jail, Harsool, Aurangabad,District Aurangabad. .. Respondents…Mr. D. S. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. Shailesh S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate forthe petitioner.Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for respondents/State.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.DATE : 12 SEPTEMBER 2025JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) .Heard learned Advocate Mr. D. S. Patil holding for learnedAdvocate Mr. Shailesh S. Gangakhedkar for the petitioner and learnedAPP Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar for respondents – State.[1] wp-1156-2025-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 14.05.2025bearing No.2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-22 passed by respondentNo.2 as well as the approval order dated 23.05.2025 and theconfirmation order dated 07.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1, byinvoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia.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, five offences wereconsidered i.e. (i) Crime No.160 of 2025 dated 18.03.2025 registeredwith Bhagyanagar Police Station, District Nanded for the offences[2] wp-1156-2025-J.odtpunishable under Sections 118(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2) ofBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (ii) Crime No.654 of 2024 dated30.12.2024 registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, District Nandedfor the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 189(2),189(4), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, under Section 4 punishableunder Section 25 of the Arms Act, (iii) Crime No.511 of 2024 dated31.12.2024 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, District Nandedfor the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 25 of the ArmsAct, (iv) Crime No.505 of 2024 dated 27.12.2024 regisrtered withShivajinagar Police Station, District Nanded for the offence underSection 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and (v) CrimeNo.558 of 2024 dated 05.11.2024 registered with Bhagyanagar PoliceStation, District Nanded for the offence under Section 3 punishableunder Section 25 of the Arms Act. Learned Advocate for the petitionersubmits that the detaining authority has considered aforesaid fiveoffences and two in-camera statements for passing the detention order.He submits that the material placed before the detaining authority by thesponsoring authority was not worth taking subjective satisfaction ortaking cognizance for passing a detention order. The nature of theoffences can be considered as individual in nature. At the most law andorder situation would have been created. Similarly the in-camerastatements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ would show that at the most law and[3] wp-1156-2025-J.odtorder situation would have been created due to the activities of thepetitioner and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashedand 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 relies on the affidavit-in-reply of Mr. RahulKardile, the District Magistrate, Nanded, wherein the details have beengiven as to what material he has considered for holding the petitioner asdangerous person as defined under M.P.D.A. The subjective satisfactionwas arrived at on the basis of in-camera statements and the contents ofthe FIR. After the subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority haspassed a reasoned order, which is then confirmed with the opinion of theAdvisory Board and, thereafter, confirmed by the State Government on07.07.2025.[4] wp-1156-2025-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. As aforesaid, thelearned District Magistrate has considered five offences and two in-camera statements for passing the detention order. As regards CrimeNo.160 of 2025 is concerned, it is stated that on 17.03.2025 theinformant was invited for marriage anniversary programme by his cousinAnand Prabhakar Hanamante. His friends and relatives were also invitedfor the said programme. At that time, the petitioner and one more personcame there at about 8.00 p.m. and told his cousin’s son PrakashHanamante that why you did not invite us. We are the don’s of this area.You will face the consequences for not inviting us to the programme andthreatened him that they will not spare him and so also threat to kill wasgiven. Thereafter, at the time of programme, one Rohit alias Monu andeight to nine other people were roaming around the programme venuewith an intention to start quarrel. Thereafter, after the programme, theinformant and relatives went to home. Thereafter, around 11.00 p.m., the[5] wp-1156-2025-J.odtinformant heard the screams of his cousin Prakash, so he came outsideand saw that near Limbuni Nagar, petitioner and one more person wereassaulting Prakash with kicks. At that time one Rohit @ Monu haddagger in his hand and the petitioner had an iron rod in his hand.Thereafter, one Ravi Waghole and informant intervened in the fight,accused Rohit @ Monu stabbed informant on the right side of stomachwith dagger and the petitioner attacked on the head of Ravi Wagholewith iron rod and abused him. All the accused persons were havingweapons in their hand and all of them were threatening the informantand his relatives. Thereafter, people gathered there, some of themintervened and resolved the quarrel. Even if we take this entire story as itis, it appears that the offence is individual in nature, as it appears thatthe general public was not involved. At the most law and order situationwould have been created and not the public order. Similarly, as regardsCrime No.654 of 2024 is concerned, general public was not involved.Further, as regards Crime No.511 of 2024, Crime No.505 of 2024 andCrime No.558 of 2024 are concerned, the offences involved were underSections 3, 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 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 order does[6]
Decision
wp-1156-2025-J.odtnot specifically state that he had gone through such Notification. We areaware that in the present proceedings, we cannot sit as an appellateCourt, but we are considering these facts to arrive at a conclusion as towhether there was material before the detaining authority to arrive at asubjective satisfaction. When these documents were not perused by thedetaining authority, we hold that there was no subjective satisfactionarrived at by the detaining authority in the present case before passingthe impugned order. Further, the detaining authority has notdemonstrated in the detention order as to how the ordinary law wouldnot have curtailed the activities of the petitioner. Therefore, taking intoconsideration the observations in Nenavath Bujji (Supra) and AmeenaBegum (Supra), we would say that all these five offences would haveraised at the most law and order situation and not the public ordersituation, as the offences involved were against the individuals. Therewas no question of public order involved in the same.7.Perusal of the statements of in-camera witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ wouldshow that the incidents 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 well[7] wp-1156-2025-J.odtas 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 :-ORDERI)The Writ Petition stands allowed.II)The detention order dated 14.05.2025 bearing No.2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-22 passed by respondent No.2 as well asthe approval order dated 23.05.2025 and the confirmation orderdated 07.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1, are hereby quashedand set aside.III)Petitioner – Aniket s/o Balaji Suryawanshi shall be releasedforthwith, if not required in any other offence.IV)Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[8]