Bombay High Court
Shrinivas Kishor Sanga vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 25 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
* 1/5 * 903-WP-1720-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1720 OF 2017
Shri Shrinivas Kishor Sanga ......Petitioner
V/s.
The Commissioner of Police
& Ors. .......Respondents
Mr. Udaynath Tripathi , Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. M.H.Mhatre , APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : July 25, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.]
Heard both sides.
2 The petitioner/detenue Shrinivas Kishor Sanga
has preferred this petition questioning preventive detention
order passed against him on 21.10.2016 by the respondent
no.1, i.e., Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The said
detention order has been passed in exercise of powers
under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug
Shivgan
* 2/5 * 903-WP-1720-2017.doc
Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand
Smugglers and persons engaged in Black marketing of
Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as
'MPDA Act') as the detenue is dangerous person whose
activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Perusal of the grounds of detention shows that detention
order is based on one C.R., i.e., C.R.No.372 of 2016 of Jail
Road Police Station, Solapur and two in-camera statements.
The detention order along with grounds of detention and
accompanying documents were served on detenue on
22.6.2016.
3 Though number of grounds have been raised in
the petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner
whereby the detention order has been assailed, as in our
opinion, this petition can be allowed on the basis of ground
(d), we need not advert to other grounds. In ground (d), it
is stated that in paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention,
the detaining authority has expressed its subjective
satisfaction as under:
"d. ..........."due to your double/triple recovery of
monies some people were thinking about suicide
and due to your act one person is dead".
Shivgan
* 3/5 * 903-WP-1720-2017.doc
4 It is contended that no material is disclosed in
the grounds of detention for the Detaining Authority to
reach said subjective satisfaction. On going through the
grounds of detention, we find that there is no material
disclosed therein that 'some people were thinking about
committing suicide due to the act of detenue'. In the reply
filed by detaining authority, it is stated that there was
sufficient material before the Detaining Authority to reach
the said subjective satisfaction. It is further stated that an
application was submitted by one Hiralal Devreddy which is
at Page 219 in the compilation furnished to the detenue
and application of said Hiralal supports the averments that
'due to acts of the detenue, people were thinking about
committing suicide'.
5 It is to be noted that this averment that 'due to
acts of the detenue, people were thinking of committing
suicide is made in the paragraph relating to the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. On going through
the grounds of detention, it is seen that the Detaining
Authority was subjectively satisfied that due to the acts of
Shivgan
* 4/5 * 903-WP-1720-2017.doc
detenue, people were thinking of committing suicide. In
such case, the basis on which such subjective satisfaction
is reached has to be disclosed in the grounds of detention.
If an averment is made in any other paragraph of the
grounds of detention than the paragraph in which
subjective satisfaction is expressed, it can be termed as a
passing reference and even if there is no material disclosed
to support the passing reference a detention order can be
sustained.
6 First of all, there is no reference to this
application in the grounds of detention. Thereafter, it is
seen that this application is dated 12.10.2015. Thus, it is
seen that this application related to a stale incident. It is
well settled that stale incidents cannot be taken into
consideration by the Detaining Authority to reach its
subjective satisfaction that it is necessary to detain the
detenue. Thus, it is seen that there was no proximate
material before the Detaining Authority to reach the said
subjective satisfaction. In addition, as stated earlier, there
is no reference at all to this application in the grounds of
Shivgan
* 5/5 * 903-WP-1720-2017.doc
detention. However, subjective satisfaction has been
reached by the Detaining Authority on the basis of this
application to which there is no reference in the grounds of
detention. This application is old and stale and hence,
could not have been taken into consideration by the
Detaining Authority. In view of the above fact, subjective
satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority is vitiated
on this ground alone. The petition must succeed. Hence,
detention order is quashed. Rule is made absolute in the
above terms.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)
Shivgan
