Bombay High Court
Shaikh Usman Shaikh Maheboob vs The State Of Mah. Home ... on 19 December, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, M. W. Chandwani
Judgment 1 63-W.P. No.690.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 690 OF 2022
Shaikh Usman Shaikh Maheboob,
Aged about 64 years, Occu. -
R/o Jam Mohalla, Sharda Saw Mill,
Gawli Pura, Tah. & Dist. Akola. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Home Department (Special)
Through its Section Officer,
Second Floor, Main Building,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2) Collector & District Magistrate,
Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATED : 19.12.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
Judgment 2 63-W.P. No.690.2022.odt
3. We find from the grounds of detention that two crimes,
bearing Crime No. 451 of 2022 for an offence punishable under
Sections 65(d) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and Crime
No. 265 of 2022 for an offence punishable under Sections 65(k)(d)(f)
of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 both registered at Police
Station Ramdas Peth, Akola were not considered to be so serious by the
Police as to warrant arrest of the petitioner in each of these crimes. If
this is so, in our view, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in
his submission that when a particular criminal activity of the detenue is
not considered to be so serious as to warrant his arrest under the
regular law, his detention under the law relating to preventive
detention would be wholly unjustified. This is also the view taken by
this Court and also Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases as
Vasudev Mahadev Surve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 592 of 2021, decided on 16.12.2021, Hanif
Karim Laluwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 75 of 2022, decided on 28.06.2022, Kasam Kalu
Nimsurwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and another , in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 269 of 2022, decided on 26.07.2022 and Akshay Kishor
Madavi Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 258 of 2022, decided on 19.08.2022.
Judgment 3 63-W.P. No.690.2022.odt
4. We are, therefore, of the view that these two crimes could
not have been taken by the authorities as constituting relevant material
for preventively detaining the petitioner.
5. If the afore-stated two crimes are kept aside, what would
remain is the material in the nature of statements of two confidential
witnesses. However, even these statements would not help in any
manner the authorities in this case. These statements only suggest that
the petitioner is a dangerous person who regularly and habitually
indulges in bootlegging activity but, the Investigating Officer of Police
Station Ramdas Peth, Akola who has investigated the Crime Nos. 451
of 2022 and 265 of 2022 has different opinion. He does not think the
petitioner to be such a dangerous bootlegger and criminal or otherwise
he would have instead of issuing notice to him under Section 41(1-a)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure arrested the petitioner in those
crimes, but, he has not done so and therefore, the statements of the
confidential witnesses pointing towards the same criminal activity
would not be relevant in this case.
6. Thus, this is a case wherein the competent authority has
relied upon something which was absolutely irrelevant in the present
case and there being no other material available on record to record
requisite satisfaction by the competent authority, the impugned
detaining order cannot be upheld by this Court.
Judgment 4 63-W.P. No.690.2022.odt
7. In the result, the Petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 01.08.2022 and also the impugned order dated
27.07.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)
Kirtak
Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:20.12.2022
10:33
