Bombay High Court
Mobin Ahmad S/O Shamsuddin Ahmad ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 7 October, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp8.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 8 of 2016
Mobin Ahmad son of Shamsuddin
Ahmad,
aged about 25 years,
occupation - Driver,
resident of Plot No. 956 Mehboob Pura,
Yashodhara Nagar,
Nagpur. ..... Petitioner.
[in jail]
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Home,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur City,
Nagpur. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. H.G. Katekar, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. V.A. Thakre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2016 00:33:57 :::
wp8.16
2
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 07th October, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.]:
01.
Order of Detention dated 2nd November, 2015 passed by
the respondent no.2, Police Commissioner, duly confirmed by the State
Govt., on 2nd December, 2015, is questioned before this Court. While
confirming the order, the State Govt., has stipulated that preventive
detention is to last for a period of one year.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to a
chart of crimes in paragraph 4 to urge that last offence looked into
therein is of the year 2014, i.e., more than fourteen months prior to
date of impugned order and, therefore, there is no live link. It is
submitted that to establish a live link for this, offence is registered on
5th September, 2015, that too under Arms Act. Our attention is also
invited to the fact that alleged in-camera statements recorded
sometime in July or September, 2015 have been verified immediately
after the proposal for detention was forwarded. Thus, first decision to
wp8.16
detain the petitioner was reached and thereafter material has been
collected to support it. Learned counsel submits that if alleged
offences dated 27th June, 2015 and 5th September, 2015 are ignored,
the order has to fall to ground.
03. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relies on Reply-Affidavit. He
after committing
has also produced before the Court original record. According to him,
offence on 27th June, 2015, petitioner was
absconding and was arrested on 5th September, 2015 with an arm.
Therefore, offence has been correctly registered on 5th September,
2015. When he was given bail in these recent offences on 13th
October, 2015, the need to take recourse to provisions of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
Bootleggers, Drug Offencers, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act,
1981, was felt and accordingly proposal was mooted. Though the
proposal was submitted on 16th October, 2015, before its approval,
necessary verification of in-camera statements was done on 17th
October, 2015 itself.
04. We have perused the papers. We cannot, at this juncture ,
say that offences allegedly committed by the petitioner on 27th June,
wp8.16
2015 or then on 5th September, 2015 are non-est or fabricated ones.
Perusal of in-camera statements reveals that the observations in
paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of the reasons supplied to petitioner in support
of detention are substantiated thereby.
05. The fact that those in-camera statements were verified one
day after submission of proposal for detention by itself is not sufficient
to vitiate the action, as impugned action is after reaching a subjective
satisfaction on 2nd November, 2015.
06. We, therefore, find, no case made out warranting
intervention. Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
wp8.16
Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 07th Oct., 2016
Pvt. Secretary.
-0-0-0-0-
wp8.16
