Bombay High Court
Faizal Khan S/O Khalil Khan vs The State Of Mah., Thr. Advisory ... on 23 December, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 crwp624.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.624 OF 2021
Faizal Khan s/o Kalil Khan,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Pvt. Work
R/o Purpidit Quarter, Akot Fail,
Akola (At present Central Prison, Nashik)
...PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Advisory Board of
Government of Maharashtra,
Home Department (Special),
Second Floor, Main Building,
Mangralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Collector & District Magistrate,
Akola. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.K. Bhangde, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M.S. SONAK AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE :- 23rd DECEMBER, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER: M.S. SONAK, J.)
Heard Shri A.K. Bhangde, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondents.
2. Rule. The Rule is returnable forthwith at the request
of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The challenge in this petition is to the detention order
dated 14.06.2021 and its confirmation order dated 16.07.2021
2 crwp624.21.odt
preventively detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons,
Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, and Persons engaged in Black
Marketing of Essential Commodities Act 1981 (for short "the said
Act").
4. Though, several challenges have been raised in this
petition, we are satisfied that the petition will have to be allowed
for the reasons that we have set out in our judgment
dated 21.12.2021 disposing of Criminal Writ Petition No.627 of
2021 (Sheikh Yetal s/o Sheikh Jabbar Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another).
5. The ground concerning in-camera statement as raised
in this petition is identical to the ground that was raised in
Criminal Writ Petition No.627 of 2021. This case is on slightly
better footing because Shri Bhangde, learned counsel pointed out
that second in-camera statement does not even bear the
endorsement that the same was duly verified by the detaining
authority. Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
however submitted that original record will bear such an
endorsement. Therefore, even if this aspect is kept aside for the
movement, this petition will have to be allowed because there is
3 crwp624.21.odt
no satisfaction recorded about the unwillingness of the witnesses
to give in-camera statements to come forward to depose against
the petitioner to criminal prosecution should a criminal
prosecution be launched against the petitioner.
6. Therefore, by following our earlier decisions rendered
in almost identical circumstances in the case of Sheikh Yetal
(supra), Pratap s/o Ajay Kharare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others (Criminal Writ Petition No.531 of 2021 decided on
28.10.2021) and Sanjay s/o Ramlal Shahu Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Writ Petition No.768
of 2015 decided on 01.02.2016), we allow this petition and set
aside the impugned detention order dated 14.06.2021 and
confirmation order dated 16.07.2021.
7. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith
unless his incarceration is required in any other matter.
The Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no
order for costs
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)
Wagh
Signed By:SURESH RAOSAHEB
WAGH
Personal Assistant
to the Hon'ble Judge
Signing Date:23.12.2021 16:22
