Judgment · High Court

Heard learned Advocate Ms. Asha N. Gore for the petitioner andlearned APP Mr. V. K. Kotecha for respondents – State.[1] wp-326-2025-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 22.10.2024bearing No.2024/CB/MPDA/DET-11/CR-78 passed by respondent No.2 aswell as the approval order dated 30.10.2024 and the confirmation orderdated 17.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1, by invoking the powers ofthis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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, two offences wereconsidered i.e.

Crime No.822 of 2024 registered with MIDC Waluj PoliceStation, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishableunder Sections 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Crime No.842 of2024 registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, District ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 352,109 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned Advocate for the petitionersubmits that the two offences i.e. Crime No.822 of 2024 dated12.09.2024 and Crime No.842 of 2024 dated 18.099.2024 as well as the[2] wp-326-2025-J.odtin-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ have been considered forpassing the detention order. As regards Crime No.822 of 2024 isconcerned, it is stated that one Koyta has been recovered from thepresent petitioner, however, the story in the FIR is unbelievable. Asregards Crime No.842 of 2024, the offence is individual in nature.

At themost law and order, situation would have been created. Further, thestatements of in-camera witnesses would show that law and ordersituation would have been created and not the public order. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and cannot be allowed to sustain. 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 and Video 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. PravinPawar, the District Magistrate, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar/detainingauthority. He supports the detention order passed by him and tries to[3] wp-326-2025-J.odtdemonstrate as to how he had arrived at the subjective satisfaction. Hefurther states that his order has been approved by the State Governmentand also by the Advisory Board. Thereafter, the confirmation has beengiven. He further submits that though the petitioner was detained for oneyear vide detention order dated 21.07.2023 bearing No.2023/MPDA/DET-10/CB-112 and the preventive action under Section 110 (e) (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was taken, still he has not deterred hiscriminal activities and, therefore, the State Government had no option, but to detain the petitioner under the detention law. 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-326-2025-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 the Hon’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 thecontents of the FIR vide Crime No.822 of 2024 would show that whenthe informant was on patrolling duty with other police officers, information was received that two persons were roaming in the area of Wadgaon Kolhati on a black colour vehicle carrying Koyta in their hand. Thereafter, the informant along with police staff rushed to the spot. Atthat time, on seeing police, petitioner and his associate ran away leavingmotorcycle and Koyta. This story would show that general public was notinvolved. In the aforesaid offence, it appears that Section 4 punishableunder Section 25 of the Arms Act as well as Section 135 of MaharashtraPolice Act have been invoked.

The case is still under investigation. The[5] wp-326-2025-J.odtimpugned detention order does not show that the Central GovernmentNotification was considered by the detaining authority. The saidNotification by Central Government is not made part of the papers, whichwere given to the petitioner, nor the said Notification has been placedbefore this Court, which is the prerequisite for Section 4 of the Arms Act. Perusal of the FIR vide Crime No.842 of 2024 registered with MIDCWaluj Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2),352, 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 would show that the incidentwas personal in nature and would not have created public ordersituation. It appears that preventive action under Section 110 (e)(g) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure was taken and final bond of Rs.20,000/-was taken from the petitioner. Whether the said action was taken to thelogical end or not has not been mentioned.