Bombay High Court
Kapil S/O Ramesh Bhati vs The State Of Mah. Home Dept. ... on 23 December, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
WP806.21.0dt. 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No.806/2021
Kapil s/o Ramesh Bhati,
Age 23 years, occ.-Labour,
R/o Near Upadhey Building, Belpura,
Rukhmini nagar, Amravati. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Home Department (Special),
through its Section Officer,
Second Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32.
2. Commissioner of Police Amravati (City), Amravati. ....Respondents.
****************************************************************************************************
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv for petitioner.
Mr. Doifode, APP for State.
*****************************************************************************************************
CORAM : M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : 23-12-2021.
Oral Judgment (Per-M.S. Sonak, J.)
Heard Mr. Sirpurkar learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Doifode, learned APP for the State.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned detention
order dated 30-09-2021.
3. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel has urged only one ground
in support of this petition. He has urged that in this case the detention
order is based on two offences i.e Crime No.296/2021 and Crime
WP806.21.0dt. 2/5
No.919/2021. In both these cases the petitioner had been enlarged on
bail. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel submits that the impugned
detention order does not show any application of mind on the aspect
why detention order had to be issued dispute the petitioner being
enlarged on bail in the two cases relied upon. He submits that non
consideration of this vital aspect or non application of mind to this vital
aspect vitiates the detention order.
4. Mr. Doifode, learned APP for the State submits that on the
reading of the impugned detention order it is quite clear that the
detaining authority was not only aware of the fact that the petitioner
had been enlarged on bail in the two cases relied upon but further the
detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that despite such release
the activities of the petitioner that posed a serious danger to public
order, continued unabated. He further submits that the detention order
is required to be read its entirety, and, so read it is clear that the
detaining authority had applied its mind to this aspect. He therefore
submits that this petition may be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival contentions so also perused the
impugned detention order and other material on record. In this case we
are satisfied that the ground on which the detention has been questioned
WP806.21.0dt. 3/5
must fail.
6. Admittedly in this case, the detaining authority was
completely aware of the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in
two cases relied upon by the detaining authority to make the order of
preventive detention. Record indicates that the bail orders were duly
considered by the detaining authority and it is precisely for this reason,
even the copies of bail orders were communicated to the petitioner so
there should not be any doubt in the mind of the detenue about
detaining authority having not taken into consideration the bail orders.
7. Thereafter, the impugned detention order specifically refers
to the factum of the release of the petitioner on bail but then proceeds
to record that the activities of the petitioner that pose a danger to
public, continue unabated. There is reference to disobedience of
externment orders. There is specific statement in the impugned
detention order about how the activities of the detenue cannot be
prevented by simple preventive action under Cr.P.C. There is reference to
how the detenee had been arrested by various police officers in the
crimes made earlier but there was no change in his criminal behaviour.
Besides there is reference to in-camera statements. There is reference to
how the witnesses are not ready to come forward and depose against the
petitioner and in similar matters.
WP806.21.0dt. 4/5
8. True, there is no specific statement in the impugned
detention order that despite release of the petitioner on bail, there is no
change in his behaviour. However mere absence of such a specific
statement does not nullify the effect of several other statements on
record and in the detention order which have the same effect.
Ultimately the phrases to be used by the detaining authority are never
determinative of the matter one way or the other. If on a reading of the
detention order in its entirety, it is apparent that the detaining authority
has satisfied itself about need to make order for preventive detention
in spite of the fact that the detenue being enlarged on bail, then, in the
exercise of our powers of judicial review, normally it is not for us to
interfere. The sufficiency of the material is not something that we are
required to or can go into while exercising the powers of our judicial
review. This is certainly not a case of absence of any material or some
case of non application of mind to vital and relevant considerations. In
the absence of the petitioner succeeding to make out a case of this
nature, we are afraid that we will not in a position to interfere with the
impugned detention order.
9. Since no other ground was urged in support of the petition,
we dismiss this petition. There shall be no order for costs.
WP806.21.0dt. 5/5
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)
Deshmukh
