Bombay High Court
Anil S/O. Ramesh Manglani vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 18 April, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment. wp64.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 64 OF 2017.
Anil s/o Ramesh Manglani,
Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Business,
Resident of Plot no.321, Sindhi
Colony, Khamla, Police Station
Pratap Nagar, Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through Commissioner of
Police, Nagpur, Tahsil and
District Nagpur.
3.State of Maharashtra,
Police Officer, Detention Wing,
Crime Branch, Nagpur. ..... RESPONDENTS.
--------------------------
Shri A.B. Moon, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A.S. Ashirgade, A.P.P. for Respondents.
--------------------------
Judgment. wp64.17
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
&
V
. M .
DESHPANDE
,
J J.
DATE : APRIL 18, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard Shri A.B. Moon, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri A.S. Ashirgade, learned A.P.P. for
respondents.
2. Order of detention dated 21.09.2016 passed by
respondent no.2 Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City dated
21.09.2016 under Section 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Dangerous Person and Video Pirates Act, is
questioned by petitioner on three grounds. First contention is,
two offences viewed as relevant for ordering detention could
not have been considered as the same appears to have been
fabricated only for the purpose of detention. Second
Judgment. wp64.17
contention is, reliance upon two in-camera statements shows
total non-application of mind as its verification done by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, has not been appropriately
evaluated and there is nothing on record to show that those in-
camera statements were personally looked into by the
Detaining Authority. Last contention is, there is no live link, in
as much as for state events the order of detention has been
mechanically passed without understanding the importance of
time factor. At every stage there is unreasonable delay.
3. Shri Moon, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly
states that though translation of relevant documents were
received by the petitioner, for want of proper legal advise,
petitioner could not make any representation and order of
detention in turn came to be approved by respondent no.1 on
03.11.2016. He is relying upon Division Bench judgment of
this Court reported at 2014 All MR (Cri) 940 (Shahnawaj
Khan Ismail Khan .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and
another).
Judgment. wp64.17
4. Shri Ashirgade, learned A.P.P. appearing for
respondents relies upon reply - affidavits filed separately by
respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. He has also produced
original in-camera statements of Witness-A and Witness-B. Our
attention is also drawn to consideration in paragraph no.9 of
the order of detention dated 22.09.2016 to urge that the in-
camera statements and its verification has been duly evaluated
by respondent no.2 Detaining Authority. Learned A.P.P.
submits that thus, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity
and hence, there is no case made out for intervention in writ
jurisdiction.
5. In so far as the consideration of in-camera
statements by the Detaining Authority in the present matter is
concerned, we find that it is not in dispute that following
observations by the Detaining Authority in paragraph no.9
appear in bold letters even in the original order.
Judgment. wp64.17
"These witnesses have given statements
before Police Inspector, Police Station,
Pratapnagar, Nagpur. Then Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Sonegao
Division, Nagpur has verified the
statements. I, detaining authority have
verified from the Assistant Commissioner
of Police, Sonegao Division, Nagpur and
he has confirmed that whole facts of the
statements are verified and to the best of
his knowledge it is true and correct. The
gist of the statements recorded in-camera is
as follows :-"
5. We have perused the original in-camera statements
which were taken out from sealed envelope. Both the in-
camera statements are recorded in presence of senior police
inspector on 11.06.2016. In in-camera statement of Witness-A,
he speaks of an event which has taken place about 20 days
prior in the month of May, 2016. In-camera Witness-B speaks
of an event which has taken place in first half of month of May,
2016. These in-camera statements are verified by the Assistant
Judgment. wp64.17
Commissioner of Police on 30.06.2016. He has mentioned that
he has verified the statements and conducted inquiry into the
episode and adjacent area. He found that there was terror
spread by the detenue in that area. After this remark by him,
there is signature of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1,
Nagpur City on 26.07.2016.
6. This material when read along with portion
reproduced supra, clearly shows that respondent no.2 has
applied his mind properly. Though on original in-camera
statements there is no endorsement by respondent no.2, that
he has seen those statements, we find that contents thereof are
reproduced in paragraph no.9.1.1 and paragraph no. 9.2.1 in
the impugned order by that authority. Those contents
therefore negate the contention raised by the petitioner. In this
respect along with portion reproduced supra, material on
record is sufficient to hold that Detaining Authority has applied
mind properly qua, those in-camera statements.
Judgment. wp64.17
7. The other arguments mostly pressed into service is
about absence of live link and unreasonable delay in passing
the detention order. In Writ Petition ground (I) specifically
raises this aspect. Respondent no.2 has replied to it in
paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the reply affidavit before this
Court.
8. Offence looked into in paragraph no.8.1.1 is
reported on 23.05.2016. The incident is alleged to have taken
place on 22.05.2016. In other offence looked into in paragraph
no.8.2.1, complaint with police is lodged on 24.05.2016, and it
is in connection with incident dated 22.04.2016. On the
strength of these two offences, proposal for externment was
drawn on 17.06.2016. By that date, two in-camera statements
were also available with the respondents. Thus, period taken
from 17.06.2016 upto 21.09.2016 falls for appreciation before
this Court.
9. The in-camera statements are verified by the
Judgment. wp64.17
Assistant Commissioner of Police on 30.06.2016. After that
verification, nothing transpired in the matter and only
development is putting of his signature by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police on those in-camera statements on
26.07.2016. Thus, office of Deputy Commissioner of Police has
taken period of about 26 days for putting one signature on in-
camera statements. Thereafter, file was forwarded to the
Detaining Authority and Detention Cell received it on
09.08.2016. Thus, as observed by this Court in its reported
judgment (supra), the file has taken time of about 14 days only
to travel from one office to other in Nagpur city. Thereafter,
typing of documents, translations etc. was over by 08.09.2016.
Thus, after 09.08.2016, period of about 30 days is taken by the
Detention Cell to process the papers further. The matter was
then placed for consideration of the Detaining Authority by
Joint Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City by making
appropriate endorsement on 12.09.2016. The Detaining
Authority has passed the impugned order on 21.09.2016.
Judgment. wp64.17
10. When the Division Bench judgment (supra), is
perused there in paragraph no.10 gap of almost 3 ½ months is
found unreasonable. In paragraph no11, the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court which finds time of 15 days taken for
completing translation is relied upon and has been quoted.
Following said Division Bench judgment we find that here after
verification of in-camera statements on 30.06.2016, no
effective steps appear to have been taken till 08.09.2016. Thus,
entire month of July, August and more than a week of the
month of September, 2016 are lost and there is no explanation
pointing out why such long time was taken to process the file
when the proposal itself was moved on 17.06.2016. From the
date of proposal, order of detention is coming up after more
than three months. After last of the offence, it is passed after
four months.
11. In this situation, we accept the contention of
petitioner that there is no live link in order of detention and the
offences looked into. In view of above discussion we proceed
Judgment. wp64.17
to pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Writ Petition is allowed.
(2) The order of detention passed by the
respondent no.2 Commissioner of Police, Nagpur
City dated 21.09.2016 under Section 3 (2) of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities
of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Dangerous Person and Video Pirates Act, is
quashed and set aside.
(3) The petitioner be set at liberty, if his
custody is not required by State in any other
offence/matter.
(4) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms,
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
