Pcb No. 35 of 2024 · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Heard both the learned Counsel. 4 cr.wp.695.24-J.odt8.On perusal of the detention order, it appears that this is thefifth detention of the petitioner. The earlier three detention orders werenot challenged by the petitioner and from 2017 to 2022, he was in jail. Thereafter, on 30.01.2023…
Judgment
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPURCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 695 OF 2024 Mohammad Arbaz @ Sanu s/o. Mohammad Israil @ Manja Ansari, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Pvt. Work,R/o. Near Kamalbaba Dargah, Mominpura, Police Station, Tahsil, Nagpur City, Nagpur. (Presently Central Prison, Nagpur).... PETITIONER ...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra Through Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special),Second Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma RajguruChowk, Mumbai – 400032.
Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur.
Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur.... RESPONDENTS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. A. K. Bhangde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. B. Badar, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 01.04.2025JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 22.04.2025JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J.) :-1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. This petition takes exception to the order bearingD.O.No.DET/MPDA/Zone-III/PCB/35/2024 dated 11.07.2024 passed by 2 cr.wp.695.24-J.odtrespondent No.2 - Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City orderingdetention of the detenu under the provisions of the MaharashtraPrevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981,(hereinafter referred to as “MPDA Act”) and also the order bearing No.MPDA-0724/CR-491/Spl-3B dated 19.07.2024 passed by the respondentNo.1 i.e. Home Department (Special) confirming the order of detentionpassed against the detenu/petitioner. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on theground that in the previous detention order in identical situation, this Court has set aside the said detention order on 17.01.2024. Earlier, hewas detained from 2017 to 2022, he has challenged the fourth detention, the said detention order has been set aside. It is alleged that the samecrime chart is used for passing the detention order. It is the contention ofthe petitioner that, the fundamental rights are infringed by the detainingauthority. On the basis of the earlier crimes as well as on the basis of thesame offences which are registered against him, the detention order ispassed, which would amount to double jeopardy. The petitioner hasrelied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chotu Vs. TheCommissioner of Police reported in 2021 ALL Mr 3430. 3 cr.wp.695.24-J.odt4.Secondly, the statement of the confidential witnesses are notreliable as the Superior Officer has not given any specific endorsementthat the witness is not willing to give evidence before the Court of lawdue to fear.
Third ground is that no public order is disturbed. In twooffences, the notice was issued under Section 41A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In first offence, he was arrested and released onbail. In the said offence, the complainant is the same and the allegationsare same, whereas in the earlier detention order, the same allegations areconsidered and the said detention order is set aside. The petitioner hasrelied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of RekhaVs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2014 (S.C.),Rakesh Mohan Gadekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in2021 ALL MR (Cri) 1028, Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana and Ors. reported in 2020 (13) SCC 632 .
The learned A.P.P. relying on the order passed by thedetaining authority, has stated that considering the earlier detentions andthough the order was set aside, he has not stopped his criminal activitiesand therefore, the detaining authority has rightly passed the detentionorder.
Heard both the learned Counsel. 4 cr.wp.695.24-J.odt8.On perusal of the detention order, it appears that this is thefifth detention of the petitioner. The earlier three detention orders werenot challenged by the petitioner and from 2017 to 2022, he was in jail. Thereafter, on 30.01.2023, he was again detained and the said detentionorder was set aside. 9. The detention order is passed considering the three recentoffences, Crime No.131/2024 is registered for the offences punishableunder Sections 385, 387, 294, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code which wascommitted on 02.03.2024 i.e. immediately after his release from theearlier detention. In the said crime, the complainant was the President ofthe Young Muslim Football Club. He is an elderly person. The petitionerwent to him and asked him to give Rs.10,000/- per month to continue onthe post of President of the Football Club. At that time, the petitionermentioned about his earlier detention which was because of thecomplainant and due to which he was arrested and detained.
Thepetitioner threatened the complainant that he will take revenge of it andhe abused the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged thecomplaint. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail and whilepassing the detention order, the bail order is considered. Though peoplegathered around upon hearing loud and abusive language, nobody cameforward because of the terror of the petitioner. It shows that thepetitioner has created terror in the mind of people in the said area. 5 cr.wp.695.24-J.odt10.Another offence is Crime No.233/2024 punishable under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra PoliceAct, 1951. In this case, the petitioner was found roaming with deadlyweapon in his hand. After receiving information, the petitioner wasarrested at Dawai Market, Gandhibagh with iron knife, the petitioner wascreating terror in the said market area. As the offence is not punishablefor more than 7 years, notice was issued under Section 41A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
11. Crime No.263/2024 has been registered under Section 160of the Indian Penal Code on 22.04.2024. The police received informationthat there is a fight occurring at public place behind Kalam Baba Dargah, Haji Hotel at Mominpura. Two persons were shouting and fightingamong themselves on the road. The police went there and detained bothof them with the help of staff, one person escaped and he was thepetitioner. Again the crime was registered and notice was issued under Section 41A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 12. On perusal of these offences, it appears that, immediatelyafter releasing from the earlier detentions, the petitioner has started hiscriminal activities. In first offence, though the complainant is same, it isnot against the individual. He has given threats to the complainantabout staying on the post of President of the Football Club. It is at publicplace, which definitely affects the public order.
The petitioner was found 6 cr.wp.695.24-J.odtroaming with knife in a market area and creating terror in the said area. The terror created by the petitioner has not only disturbed the law andorder situation but it amounts to disturbance of public order. Thirdoffence is also at a public place. All the offences are committed by thepetitioner one after another. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the shelterof the earlier order passed by this Court stating that similar allegationsare made and the crime is registered. The question of double jeopardywill not attract in this case as after his release from detention order, hehas again committed similar offence, it is not the case that the sameoffence is considered. It appears that list of the earlier offences is givenbut the said offences are not considered for passing the detention order. Therefore, there is no substance in the contentions of the petitioner thatthe detention order is passed on the basis of the offences which werealready considered in the earlier detention order.
The requirement ofdetaining the petitioner is proved from his activities immediately after hisrelease from Jail. 14. The next ground is about the statements of the confidentialwitnesses. On perusal of the original statements, it appears that thepetitioner has extorted money from a passer-by and thereby has createdterror. The witnesses have not lodged the complaint because they wereafraid of the petitioner. On perusal of the statements, it appears that, the 7 cr.wp.695.24-J.odtstatements were verified by the Senior Police Inspector, thereafter it wasverified by the Additional Commissioner of Police on 10.05.2024. On13.05.2024, the Deputy Commissioner of Police again verified andspecifically stated that nobody is ready to give the statement against thepetitioner and then it was verified by the detaining authority on11.07.2024. Both these statements are about extortion and creatingterror. As such, there is a proper verification.
Operative part
The contents of the saidstatements also prove that the petitioner has created terror in the saidarea. As aforesaid, the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on thebasis of two statements as well as three offences. The public order isdisturbed because of the criminal activities of the petitioner. We do notfind this to be a fit case where we should exercise our Constitutionalpowers to set aside the detention order. 15. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. The Rule isdischarged. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)RGurnule
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 160; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 4, 25; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41A(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.