Bombay High Court
Lucky S/O Kishor Telang (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 7 June, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 crwp1006.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1006/2015
Shri Lucky s/o Kishor Telang,
aged 20 years, Occ. Private,
r/o Savitribai Fule Nagar, Police Station
Ajni, Tq. Dist. Nagpur.
At present the petitioner detailed in
Aurangabad Central Prison,
Aurangabad. .....PETITIONER
ig ...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Department of Home (Special),
Maharashtra, Mumbai-32.
2. The State of Maharashtra through
Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, Tq.
Dist. Nagpur.
3. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Officer, Detention Wing,
Crime Branch, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. B. Moon, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S. M. Ukey, A. P. P. for respondents-State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.
DATED :-
JUNE 7, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V. M. Deshpande, J.)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order
passed by the respondent no.2-Commissioner of Police dated
2 crwp1006.15.odt
11.07.2015 in exercise of the powers under Section 3 (3) of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates
Act, 1981 and thereby detained the petitioner for a period of one
year. The said order is approved by the respondent no.1 vide order
dated 17.07.2015. The said order is also challenged in the present
petition.
2.
Heard Mr. A. B. Moon, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ukey, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State.
3. More than one submissions were advanced before this
Court in support of the petition by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. However, in our view, the first ground is sufficient to
allow the present petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two
in-camera statements were recorded by the Police Inspector though
the statements are dated 19.06.2015. He also invited our attention to
the fact that these in-camera Statements were duly verified by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police on 20.06.2015. He submitted that
3 crwp1006.15.odt
if these two in-camera statements are examined properly then it
would show that the detaining authority has not applied its mind
before passing the impugned order. We find sufficient force in the
aforesaid submissions.
5. Both the in-camera statements show that the statements of
those two witnesses were recorded on 19.06.2015. In-camera
statement-B shows that the incident as mentioned in the in-camera
statement has occurred in the second week of June, 2015. However,
if the verification done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is
seen, it will depict that he has visited the spot in the first week of
June-2015. There was no occasion for the Assistant Commissioner of
Police to visit the spot in the first week of June, 2015 to verify about
the truthfulness or otherwise of the incident in respect of the alleged
incident, alleged to have occurred in the second week of June-2015.
This aspect though is vital, it appears that the detaining authority has
not considered or overlooked. Therefore, in our view, subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority suffers from non application of
mind. Further, insofar as in-camera statement-A is concerned, the
said Statement dated 19.06.2015 shows that the incident has
occurred in the first week of June-2015, whereas the verification
4 crwp1006.15.odt
statement also shows that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has
visited the spot in the first week of June-2015. Pertinent to note that
the statement is dated 19.06.2015. If that be so, there was no
occasion for the Assistant Commissioner of Police to visit the spot in
the first week of June-2015. According to us, this particular aspect is
fatal and it shows that the detaining authority has mechanically
passed the order without applying the mind independently.
6.
On this count itself, the petition deserves to be allowed
and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated
11.07.2015 together with order dated 17.07.2015 are quashed and
set aside. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if he is not
required in any other crime.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
