Bombay High Court
Madhukar @ Madhu Pahelwan Rambhau ... vs The District Magistrate, Jalgaon ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
-1-
criwp1517.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1517 OF 2020
Shaikh Kalu Shaikh Noora
age 53 years, occ. Labour
r/o Burhanpur Road,
Swastik Taki Parisar
Raver, Tq. Raver
Dist. Jalgaon
(At Present in Nshik Road Central prison) Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Magistrate, Jalgaon
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. The State of Maharashtra Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1518 OF 2020
Aadil Khan @ Raju Bashir Khan
age 22 years, occ. Education
r/o Shankar Plot, Fukatpura, Raver
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
(At Present in Nashik Roadk Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Magistrate, Jalgaon
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. The State of Maharashtra Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1519 OF 2020
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 16:24:06 :::
-2-
criwp1517.20.odt
Shaikh maqbul Ahmad Shaikh Mohiyoddin
age 57 years, occ. Labour
r/o Madina Colony, Raver
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
(At Present in Nashik Road Central Prison) Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Magistrate, Jalgaon
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. The State of Maharashtra Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1520 OF 2020
Madhukar @ Madhu Pahelwan Rambhau Shinde
age 65 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Raje Shivaji Chowk, Raver
Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
(At Prsent in Nashik Road Central Prison) Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Magistrate, Jalgaon
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. The State of Maharashtra Respondents
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, AGP for respondents.
CORAM : T.V. Nalawade &
M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.
DATE : 4th January, 2021.
JUDGMENT : (Per M.G. Sewlikar, J.)
criwp1517.20.odt
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By consent, heard fnally at admission stage.
3. All these writ petitions are being disposed of by common
judgment as these petitions arise out of the same incident.
4. By these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging
their detention by the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, under The
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders/Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates
Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act").
5. Facts giving rise to Criminal Writ Petition No. 1517/2020
are that Raver Police Station initiated proposal for detention of the
petitioner vide proposal dated 08.09.2020. On the basis of this
proposal, the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, vide detention order dated
19.09.2020, ordered detention of the petitioner under MPDA Act. The
order of detention was passed under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. It
is alleged in the said order that the petitioner has disturbed public
peace in the area within the jurisdiction of Raver Police Station.
criwp1517.20.odt
Petitioner has created the atmosphere of fear and terror. He is in the
habit of committing serious offences owing to which, he has
disturbed law and order and has damaged the public properties.
Petitioner has a tendency to commit offences under Chapter XVI and
XVII of the Indian Penal Code i.e. offences affecting human body and
offences against property. Despite initiating proceedings under
Section 107 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his activities
are not declining rather they are showing ascending trend.
6. The details of offences registered against the petitioner
are as under :-
v- iks- LVs- ps uko xqjua dye l|fLFkrh
u-
1 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 307] 353] 333] 435] 427] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku ¼CCTNS No. 75½ 143] 147] 148]149] 120c] 201] 188]
151] fdzykW vesaMesaV vWDV 1932 dye 3]
7 lkoZ- ekyeRrk uqdlku izfrca/k dk;nk
dye 3] eqacbZ iksyhl vf/kfu;e 1951 ps
dye 135 izek.ks] /kkfeZd laLFkk ¼nq#i;ksx
fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e 1988 ps dye 3¼?k½
4]5] Hkkjrh; fot vf/kfu;e 2003 ps
dye 139 o "kL= vf/kfu;e 1959 ps
dye [email protected] izek.ks
2 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfoa dye 307] 143] 147] 148] 149] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku ¼CCTNS No. 76½ 435] 427] 201] 188] 151 lg fdzykW
vesMesaV vWDV 1932 dye 3] 7 lkoZ
ekyeRrk uqdlku izfrca/k dk;nk 1984
dye 3] eqacbZ iksyhl vf/kfu;e 1951 ps
dye 135 izek.ks o Hkkjrh; oht vf/k
2003 dye 139 izek.ks
3 Lkkonk iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 269] 270] 188] 505¼2½] 34 Ikksyhl riklkoj
LVs"ku lg lkFkjksx izfrca/kd dk;nk dye 2]3]4
izek.ks
criwp1517.20.odt
jkosj iksyhl LVs"ku varxZr nk[ky vlysY;k izfrca/kkRed dkjokbZ ckcrpk rif"ky
[kkyhy izek.ks
v- Ikksyhl LVs"ku jft- uacj vf/kfu;e o dye l|fLFkrh
dz-
4 jkosj iksyhl [email protected] QkStnkjh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ps dye 6 efgus eqnrhps
LVs"ku 107 izek.ks #i;s 10]000 ps
vafre ca/ki=
?ks.;kr vkys
vkgs-
5 jkosj iksyhl [email protected] QkStnkjh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ps dye 6 efgus eqnrhps
LVs"ku 107 izek.ks #i;s 10]000 ps
vafre ca/ki=
?ks.;kr vkys
vkgs-
6 jkosj iksyhl [email protected] QkStnkjh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ps dye 1 o'kZ eqnrhps
LVs"ku 110 izek.ks #i;s 20]000 ps
fotkrh;
tkfeunkj
7. It is alleged that on 22.03.2020, during pandemic at
20:45 hours, curfew was clamped on account of spread of corona
virus called Covid-19. Despite that, breaching the curfew orders,
members of Muslim community were offering namaz infront of
Maniyar mosque. On receiving telephonic message, PSI Kadam and
his staff went to the spot where they found a crowd of around 400
people gathered near Maniyar mosque. The members of Muslim and
Hindu community were pelting stones against each other on account
of offering of namaz on the road. Police had asked the crowd to
criwp1517.20.odt
disperse but in breach of that order, the crowd became more violent.
It started pelting stones, bricks, glass bottles. PSI Naik fred in the
air and then the crowd dispersed. It is further alleged that petitioner
and others disconnected the electricity supply from the electric DP in
Shivaji square. The order further stated that in camera statements
of witnesses A and B have been recorded. From their statements, it
appears that nobody is coming forward to depose against the
petitioner because of his criminal activities and atmosphere of fear
and terror created by him. The petitioner is in the habit of inciting
communal violence and creating rift between the members of Hindu
and Muslim community. The order further states that because of the
criminal activities of the petitioner, detention of the petitioner has
become necessary to maintain public order.
8. Facts giving rise to Criminal Writ Petition No. 1518/2020
are that Raver Police Station initiated proposal for detention of the
petitioner vide proposal dated 08.09.2020. On the basis of this
proposal, the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, vide detention order dated
19.09.2020, ordered detention of the petitioner under MPDA Act. The
order of detention was passed under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. It
is alleged in the said order that the petitioner has disturbed public
criwp1517.20.odt
peace in the area within the jurisdiction of Raver Police Station.
Petitioner has created the atmosphere of fear and terror. He is in the
habit of committing serious offences owing to which, he has
disturbed law and order and has damaged the public properties.
Petitioner has a tendency to commit offences under Chapter XVI and
XVII of the Indian Penal Code i.e. offences affecting human body and
offences against property. Despite initiating proceedings under
Section 107 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his activities
are not declining rather they are showing ascending trend.
9. The details of offences registered the petitioner are as
under :-
v- iks- LVs- ps uko xqjua dye l|fLFkrh
u-
1 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 324] 323] 504] 506] 34 U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku izek.ks
2 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfoa dye 341] 323] 504] 506] 34 U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku izek.ks
3 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 302] 436] 307] 452] 427] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku 143] 147] 148] 149] 336] 188] lg fdzykW
vesaMesaV vWDV 1932 ps dye 3] 7 ps
dye 37 ¼1½¼3½ ps mYya?ku 135 izek.ks
"kL= vf/kfu;e 1959 ps dye [email protected]
izek.ks
4 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 307] 143] 147] 148] 149 U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku lg eqacbZ iksyhl vf/kfu;e 1951 ps
dye 37 ¼1½¼3½ ps mYya?ku 135] "kL=
vf/kfu;e 1959 ps dye [email protected] o fdz-ykW-
vesMesaV vWDV 1932 ps dye 3] 7 izek.ks
criwp1517.20.odt
jkosj iksyhl LVs"ku varxZr nk[ky vlysY;k izfrca/kkRed dkjokbZ ckcrpk rif"ky [kkyhl
izek.ks
v- Ikksyhl LVs"ku jft- uacj vf/kfu;e o dye l|fLFkrh
dz-
5 jkosj iksyhl [email protected] QkStnkjh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ps dye 6 efgus eqnrhps
LVs"ku 107 izek.ks #i;s 10]000 ps
vafre ca/ki=
?ks.;kr vkys
vkgs-
6 jkosj iksyhl [email protected] QkStnkjh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ps dye 6 efgus eqnrhps
LVs"ku 107 izek.ks #i;s 10]000 ps
vafre ca/ki=
?ks.;kr vkys
vkgs-
7 jkosj iksyhl [email protected] QkStnkjh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ps dye 6 efgus eqnrhps
LVs"ku 110 izek.ks #i;s 10]000 ps
vafre ca/ki=
?ks.;kr vkys
vkgs-
10. It is alleged in the First Information Report No. 59/2020
lodged against the petitioner that on 22.03.2020 at 9.00 pm in
Maniyarwada area, members of Muslim community had gathered for
offering namaz on the road and on that ground, the members of
Hindu and Muslim community were pelting stones against each
other. Some members of the Muslim community attacked Hindu
community by means of sword, stones, bricks and killed one
Yashwant Kashinath Marathe by committing criminal trespass and
also threw some infammable substance in the house of Shobhabai
Mahajan and set her house on fre. The order further states that
criwp1517.20.odt
because of the criminal activities of the petitioner, detention of the
petitioner is necessary to maintain public order.
11. Facts giving rise to Criminal Writ Petition No.1519/2020
are that Raver Police Station initiated proposal for detention of the
petitioner vide proposal dated 08.09.2020. On the basis of this
proposal, the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, vide detention order dated
19.09.2020, ordered detention of the petitioner under MPDA Act. The
order of detention was passed under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. It
is alleged in the said order that the petitioner has disturbed public
peace in the area within the jurisdiction of Raver Police Station.
Petitioner has created the atmosphere of fear and terror. He is in the
habit of committing serious offences owing to which, he has
disturbed law and order and has damaged the public properties.
Petitioner has a tendency to commit offences under Chapter XVI and
XVII of the Indian Penal Code i.e. offences affecting human body and
offences against property. Despite initiating proceeding under
Section 107 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his activities
are not declining rather they are showing ascending trend.
- 10 -
criwp1517.20.odt
12. The details of offences registered the petitioner are as
under :-
v- iks- LVs- ps uko xqjua dye l|fLFkrh
u-
1 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 307] 353] 333] 435] 427] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku ¼CCTNS No. 75½ 143] 147] 148]149] 120c] 201] 188]
151] fdzykW vesaMesaV vWDV 1932 dye 3]
7 lkoZ- ekyeRrk uqdlku izfrca/k dk;nk
dye 3] eqaiks dk;nk dye 37¼1½¼3½ ps
mYya?ku 135] Hkkjrh; oht vf/k 2003
dye 139 izek.ks] /kkfeZd lLFkk ¼nq#i;ksx
fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e 1988 ps dye 3¼/k½
4]5 o vkeZ vWDV dye [email protected] izek.ks
2 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfoa dye 307] 143] 147] 148] 149] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku ¼CCTNS No. 76½ 435] 427] 201] 188] 151 lg fdzykW
vesMesaV vWDV 1932 dye 3] 7 eqaiksdk
dye 135] lkoZ ekyeRrk uqdlku izfrca/k
dk;nk 1984 dye 3 o Hkkjrh; oht
vf/k 2003 dye 139 izek.ks
3 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 302] 436] 307] 452] 427] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku 143] 147] 148] 149] 336] 188] lg fdzykW
vesaMesaV vWDV 1932 dye 3]7 eqaiksdk
dye 135 lg Hkkgdk [email protected] izek.ks
4 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknafo dye 307] 143] 147] 148] 149 U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku lg eqaiksdk dye 135 lg Hkkgdk [email protected]
izek.ks
jkosj iksyhl LVs"ku varxZr nk[ky vlysY;k izfrca/kkRed dkjokbZ ckcrpk rif"ky
[kkyhy izek.ks
v- Ikksyhl LVs"ku jft- uacj vf/kfu;e o dye l|fLFkrh
dz-
5 jkosj iksyhl [email protected] QkStnkjh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ps dye 6 efgus eqnrhps
LVs"ku 110 izek.ks #i;s 10]000 ps
vafre ca/ki=
?ks.;kr vkys
vkgs-
- 11 -
criwp1517.20.odt
13. It is alleged that on 22.03.2020, during pandemic at
20:45 hours, curfew was clamped on account of spread of corona
virus called Covid-19. Despite that, breaching the curfew orders,
members of Muslim community were offering namaz infront of
Maniyar mosque. On receiving telephonic message, PSI Kadam and
his staff went to the spot where they found a crowd of around 400
people gathered near Maniyar mosque. The members of Muslim and
Hindu community were pelting stones against each other on account
of offering of namaz on the road. Police had asked the crowd to
disperse but in breach of that order, the crowd became more violent.
It started pelting stones, bricks, glass bottles. PSI Naik fred in the
air and then the crowd dispersed. It is further alleged that petitioner
and others disconnected the electricity supply from the electric DP in
Shivaji square. The order further stated that in camera statements
of witnesses A and B have been recorded. From their statements, it
appears that nobody is coming forward to depose against the
petitioner because of his criminal activities and atmosphere of fear
and terror created by him. The petitioner is in the habit of inciting
communal violence and creating rift between the members of Hindu
and Muslim community. The order further states that because of the
- 12 -
criwp1517.20.odt
criminal activities of the petitioner, detention of the petitioner is
necessary to maintain public order.
14. Facts giving rise to Criminal Writ Petition no. 1920/2020
are that Raver Police Station initiated proposal for detention of the
petitioner vide proposal dated 08.09.2020. On the basis of this
proposal, the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, vide detention order dated
19.09.2020, ordered detention of the petitioner under MPDA Act. The
order of detention was passed under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. It
is alleged in the said order that the petitioner has disturbed public
peace in the area within the jurisdiction of Raver Police Station.
Petitioner has created the atmosphere of fear and terror. He is in the
habit of committing serious offences owing to which, he has
disturbed law and order and has damaged the public properties.
Petitioner has a tendency to commit offences under Chapter XVI and
XVII of the Indian Penal Code i.e. offences affecting human body and
offences against property. Despite initiating proceeding under
Section 107 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his activities
are not declining rather they are showing ascending trend.
- 13 -
criwp1517.20.odt
15. The details of offences registered the petitioner are as
under :-
v- iks- LVs- ps uko xqjua dye l|fLFkrh
u-
1 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 307] 353] 333] 435] 427] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku ¼CCTNS No. 75½ 143] 147] 148]149] 120c] 201] 188]
151] fdzykW vesaMesaV vWDV 1932 dye 3]
7 lkoZ- ekyeRrk uqdlku izfrca/k dk;nk
dye 3] eqacbZ iksyhl vf/kfu;e 1951 ps
dye 37 ¼1½ ¼3½ ps mYya?ku 135
izek.ks] /kkfeZd laLFkk ¼nq#i;ksx fuokj.k½
vf/kfu;e 1988 ps dye 3¼?k½ 4]5]
Hkkjrh; fot vf/kfu;e 2003 ps dye
139 o "kL= vf/kfu;e 1959 ps dye
[email protected] izek.ks
2 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfoa dye 307] 341] 143] 144] 147] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku ¼CCTNS No. 77½ 148] 149 lg fdzykW vesMesaV vWDV 1932
dye 3] 7] eqacbZ iksyhl vf/kfu;e 1951
ps dye 37 ¼1½ ¼3½ ps mYya?ku 135
izek.ks o "kL= vf/kfu;e 1959 ps dye
[email protected] izek.ks
3 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 307] 143] 147] 148] 149] U;k;izfo'B
LVs"ku Hkkx 5 120c] 188] 151 lg fdzykW vesaMesaV vWDV
CCTNS No. 79½ 1932 dye 3]7] lkoZ] ekyeRrk uqdlku
izfrca/k dk;nk dye 3] eqacbZ iksyhl
vf/kfu;e 1951 ps dye 37 ¼1½ ¼3½ ps
mYya?ku 135] /kkfeZd lLFkk ¼nq#i;ksx
fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e 1988 ps dye 3¼?k½]
4] 5] Hkkjrh; fot vf/kfu;e 1959 ps
dye [email protected] izek.ks
4 jkosj iksyhl Xqkjua [email protected] Hkknfo dye 269] 270] 188] 505¼2½] 34 Ikksyhl riklkoj
LVs"ku Hkkx 6 lg lkFkjksx izfrca/kd dk;nk dye 3]4
CCTNS No. 79½ lg eqa iks vf/k 1951 ps dye 37 ¼1½ ¼3½
ps mYya?ku 135 izek.ks
jkosj iksyhl LVs"ku varxZr nk[ky vlysY;k izfrca/kkRed dkjokbZ ckcrpk rif"ky
[kkyhy izek.ks
v- Ikksyhl LVs"ku jft- uacj vf/kfu;e o dye l|fLFkrh
dz-
- 14 -
criwp1517.20.odt
5 jkosj iksyhl [email protected] QkStnkjh izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ps dye 1 o'kZ eqnrhps
LVs"ku 107 izek.ks #i;s 20]000 ps
fotkrh;
tkfeunkj
16. It is alleged that on 22.03.2020, during pandemic at
20:45 hours, curfew was clamped on account of spread of corona
virus called Covid-19. Despite that, breaching the curfew orders,
members of Muslim community were offering namaz infront of
Maniyar mosque. On receiving telephonic message, PSI Kadam and
his staff went to the spot where they found a crowd of around 400
people gathered near Maniyar mosque. The members of Muslim and
Hindu community were pelting stones against each other on account
of offering of namaz on the road. Police had asked the crowd to
disperse but in breach of that order, the crowd became more violent.
It started pelting stones, bricks, glass bottles. PSI Naik fred in the
air and then the crowd dispersed. It is further alleged that petitioner
and others disconnected the electricity supply from the electric DP in
Shivaji square. The order further stated that in camera statements
of witnesses A and B have been recorded. From their statements, it
appears that nobody is coming forward to depose against the
petitioner because of his criminal activities and atmosphere of fear
and terror created by him. The petitioner is in the habit of inciting
- 15 -
criwp1517.20.odt
communal violence and creating rift between the members of Hindu
and Muslim community. The order further states that because of the
criminal activities of the petitioner, detention of the petitioner is
necessary to maintain public order.
17. Papers were sent to the Government for approval of
detention order. Grounds of detention were served on the petitioners.
Petitioners made representation on 09.10.2020. Therefore, the
Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board. The Advisory
Board, after hearing the petitioners, approved the order of detention.
Accordingly, the State Government ordered detention of petitioners
for a period of one year.
18. Heard Shri Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Shri Nerlikar, learned APP for the State.
19. Learned counsel Shri Chatterji argued that vague
allegations are made against the petitioners. On the basis of sole
instance, the petitioners are being detained under the MPDA Act.
Detention order does not show that the petitioners have criminal
- 16 -
criwp1517.20.odt
background. Therefore, detention of the petitioners is against the
provisions of law.
20. Learned APP Shri Nerlikar submitted that Raver is a
sensitive place. At this place 34 riots have taken place. He further
submitted that petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1517/2020
was the master mind behind the riot which took place on 22.03.2020
and 23.03.2020. He further submitted that petitioner Shaikh Kalu
Shaikh Noora committed another offence after he was released on
bail. Therefore, he was rightly detained. The activities of the
petitioners show that they have criminal tendency. Despite initiating
Chapter proceedings, their activities are showing ascending trend. He
further submitted that the petitioners incited communal violence
between members of Hindu and Muslim community and tried to
create rift between them. In order to curb their activities, their
detention has become necessary. In-camera statements of witnesses
A and B also show that the petitioners have created the atmosphere
of fear and terror in the locality. Therefore, they were rightly
detained.
- 17 -
criwp1517.20.odt
21. So far as Criminal Writ Petition no. 1517/2020 is
concerned, as stated earlier, detention order shows that three
offences have been registered against the petitioner those are Crime
No. 55/2020, 56/2020 and 29/2020. Perusal of detention order
shows that the riot took place on 23.03.2020 on account of the
activities of the members of Muslim community of offering namaz on
the road. The order of detention does not show that the petitioner
was responsible for the riots. Detention order also does not show as
to what role the petitioner actually played in this riot. It is simply
mentioned that a crowd of 350 to 400 people gathered near Maniyar
mosque. Members of both the communities were pelting stones
against each other and also attacked the police by stones, bricks and
other weapons. It further shows that somebody had disconnected
the electricity supply from the DP. This shows that vague allegations
are made against the petitioner. On the basis of these vague
allegations, it is diffcult for the detenu to answer the allegations
made in the notice. The prosecution has produced the original fle
produced before the Detaining Authority. On perusal of the fle, it is
seen that the First Information Reports do not mention as to what
role the petitioner played in the said riot.
- 18 -
criwp1517.20.odt
22. First Information Report No. 56/2020 shows that it
contains the same allegations as are made in First Information
Report No. 55/2020. The date is also the same i.e. 22.03.2020 and
the time is also same i.e. 8:45 pm. Allegations are also the same. The
allegations in First Information Report Nos. 55/2020 and 56/2020
show that the petitioner and 16 others pelted stones on the Hindu
community and the members of Hindu community also pelted stones
against the members of Muslim Community. On the basis of these
vague allegations, it cannot be said that the petitioner had
participated in the riot or he was the master mind of the riot.
23. So far as Criminal Writ Petition No. 1518/2020 is
concerned, First Information Report No. 59/2020 is produced on
record. Name of the petitioner does not appear in the First
Information Report. The in-camera statement of witness A is also
vague. It only mentions that the petitioner had participated in riot
and damaged the property. He has criminal background. Similar is
the statement of witness B. On the basis of such vague allegations
and especially on the basis of sole First Information Report, it is
diffcult to fathom that the petitioner had incited communal violence.
In complaint dated 23.03.2020 (Crime No. 60/2020) lodged by
- 19 -
criwp1517.20.odt
Vaishnavi Nilesh Jagtap, name of the petitioner does not appear. It
shows that members of Muslim community by name Inna Akbar
Baig, Fattya Tutya Jakir, Shaikh Firoz Shaikh Yusuf Khan, Makbul
Aam Shaikh Faimoddin, Shaikh Ashfak and Shaikh Sahud Shaikh
Jakir and others attacked the members of Hindu community and the
informant learnt that her husband was assaulted by means of a
sword and he was seriously injured. So far as Crime Nos. 43/2018
and 65/2019 are concerned, they do not relate to incitement of
communal violence.
24. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1519/2020 Perusal of
detention order shows that the riot took place on 23.03.2020 on
account of the activities of the members of Muslim community of
offering namaz on the road. The order of detention does not show
that the petitioner was responsible for the riots. Detention order also
does not show as to what role the petitioner actually played in this
riot. It is simply mentioned that a crowd of 350 to 400 people
gathered near Maniyar mosque. Members of both the communities
were pelting stones against each other and also attacked the police by
stones, bricks and other weapons. It further shows that somebody
had disconnected the electricity supply from the DP. This shows that
- 20 -
criwp1517.20.odt
vague allegations are made against the petitioner. On the basis of
these vague allegations, it is diffcult for the detenu to answer the
allegations made in the notice. The prosecution has produced the
original fle produced before the Detaining Authority. On perusal of
the fle, it is seen that the First Information Reports do not mention
as to what role the petitioner played in the said riot.
25. First Information Report No. 56/2020 shows that it
contains the same allegations as are made in First Information
Report No. 55/2020. The date is also the same i.e. 22.03.2020 and
the time is also same i.e. 8:45 pm. Allegations are also the same. The
allegations in First Information Report No. 56/2020 show that the
petitioner and 16 others pelted stones on the Hindu community and
the members of Hindu community also pelted stones against the
members of Muslim Community. On the basis of these vague
allegations, it cannot be said that the petitioner had participated in
the riot.
26. In First Information Report No. 60/2020, name of the
petitioner does not appear. It shows that members of Muslim
community by name Inna Akbar Baig, Fattya Tutya Jakir, Shaikh
- 21 -
criwp1517.20.odt
Firoz Shaikh Yusuf Khan, Makbul Aam Shaikh Faimoddin, Shaikh
Ashfak and Shaikh Sahud Shaikh Jakir and others attacked the
members of Hindu community. In First Information Report No.
59/2020 also, name of the petitioner does not appear. The
allegations are general in nature. No specifc allegations are made
against the petitioner.
27. In Criminal Writ Petition no. 1520/2020, perusal of
detention order shows that the riot took place on 23.03.2020 on
account of the activities of the members of Muslim community of
offering namaz on the road. The order of detention does not show
that the petitioner was responsible for the riots. Detention order also
does not show as to what role the petitioner actually played in this
riot. It is simply mentioned that a crowd of 350 to 400 people
gathered near Maniyar mosque. Members of both the communities
were pelting stones against each other and also attacked the police by
stones, bricks and other weapons. It further shows that somebody
had disconnected the electricity supply from the DP. This shows that
vague allegations are made against the petitioner. On the basis of
these vague allegations, it is diffcult for the detenu to answer the
allegations made in the notice. The prosecution has produced the
- 22 -
criwp1517.20.odt
original fle produced before the Detaining Authority. On perusal of
the fle, it is seen that the First Information Reports do not mention
as to what role the petitioner played in the said riot.
28. On perusal of First Information Report No. 55/2020, it is
seen that name of the petitioner is not there in the First Information
Report. What role the petitioner had played is not disclosed from the
First Information Report. In First Information Report No. 79/2020
also name of the petitioner does not appear. All these offences
though registered separately, occurred on the same day, therefore, it
appears that they occurred in the course of the same transaction.
29. In Crime No. 57/2020, it is alleged that the petitioner
and others assaulted the informant on 22.03.2020 at about 9:15 pm.
The First Information Report does not state as to whether the
petitioner assaulted by means of a sword. In Crime No. 58/2020, it
is alleged that Suresh Sonu Shinde and others around 150 to 200
people assaulted the members of Muslim community on account of
offering namaz on road on 23.03.2020 at about 8.45 pm. The First
Information Report does not mention the name of the petitioner.
- 23 -
criwp1517.20.odt
30. Crime No. 58/2020 is registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 269, 270, 188, 505(2) of the Indian Penal
Code. The allegations are that Deepak Shinde and others had
gathered without wearing mask and without maintaining social
distancing. These allegations show that the name of the petitioner is
not mentioned in the First Information Report. Moreover, the
allegations against the accused in First Information Report No.
58/2020 are vague. On the basis of these vague allegations and sole
instance of inciting communal violence, the petitioner cannot be
detained.
31. Learned APP Shri Nerlikar placed reliance on two
authorities for the preposition that on the basis of vague allegations,
detention can be ordered. The frst authority in the case of Abdul
Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs. Union of India reported in 1991 AIR (SC)
2261 is under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act and the same is not applicable. Moreover,
the point involved in it was whether a person in jail can be ordered
to be detained. This is not the issue in all these petitions. The
second authority is in the case of Fitrat Raza Khan Vs. State of U.P.
- 24 -
criwp1517.20.odt
and others reported in 1982 AIR (SC) 146, wherein the Honourable
Supreme Court has observed thus :-
The past conduct or antecedent, history of a person
can appropriately be taken into account in making a
detention order. It is usually from prior events
showing tendencies or inclinations of a man that an
inference can be drawn whether he is likely, in the
future, to act in a manner prejudicial tot he
maintenance of public order. Although there was a
lapse of a year but the incident of July 24, 1981, was
just on the eve of the Id festival and the ground
alleged is that the petitioner was trying to instigate
the Muslims to communal violence by promise of
better arms, with a view to an open confrontation
between the two communities. It cannot be said
that the prejudicial conduct or antecedent history of
the petitioner was not proximate in point of time and
had no rational connection with the conclusion that
his detention was necessary for maintenance of
public order.
The facts in the above decision can be easily distinguishable.
In the abovereferred case, the facts were that the detenu had an
offence registered against him for inciting communal violence and
committing riots. Within one year, another offence was registered
against him for inciting communal violence. Therefore, the
Honourable Supreme Court held that on the basis of vague
allegations it can be said that the petitioner had criminal tendency
and had the tendency of inciting communal violence. This is not the
factual position in the instant petition.
- 25 -
criwp1517.20.odt
32. The allegations against the petitioners show that
they did not have any past conduct of inciting communal violence.
Therefore, they have no criminal history of creating communal rift
between the members of Hindu community. Things would have been
different if any case had been registered against the petitioners in the
past for inciting communal violence. The allegations in the order of
detention do not show that they had criminal antecedents of inciting
riots. Having regard to all these things, it cannot be said that there
was suffcient material before the Detaining Authority for detention of
the petitioners. Moreover, only on the basis of sole instance, it
cannot be said that the petitioners have tendency to create rift
between the two communities and inciting communal violence.
33. Learned APP Shri Nerlikar submitted that after the
petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1517/2020 was released on
bail, he committed another offence. According to him, the petitioner
got himself felicitated on account of his release on bail. He argued
that this shows that the petitioner has criminal tendency. The First
Information Report in Crime No. 29/2020 is produced on record. It
shows that the petitioner had incited the members of his community
for committing communal violence. The petitioner was released on
- 26 -
criwp1517.20.odt
bail on 29.06.2020. On 01.07.2020, he was going to Raver and on
the way at Sawga near Sonali Cold Drink, he got himself and his
associates felicitated. At that time, social distancing was not
maintained and the instructions for controlling pandemic were not
followed. To felicitate oneself cannot be said to be an offence nor it
can be said to be an incitement for committing communal violence or
offence of riot or any offence akin thereto.
34. The order of detention does not show that the Detaining
Authority had satisfed itself subjectively for ordering detention of the
petitioners. The impugned order of detention is, therefore,
unsustainable. Hence, the following order is passed :-
ORDER
1. All the petitions are allowed.
2. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause
'C'.
3. Rule made absolute in those terms.
( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
Judge Judge
dyb
