Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sanjay S/O Soma Shinde vs State Of Mha. Thr. Advisory Board ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6151 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6151 Bom
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2022

Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Soma Shinde vs State Of Mha. Thr. Advisory Board ... on 1 July, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
                                     1                                 334 criwp872 21(J).odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.


             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 872 OF 2021


PETITIONER                  : Sanjay S/o Soma Shinde,
                              Aged about 43 years, Occu. Pvt. Work
                              R/o Tadumari, Tq. Kelapur,
                              Pandharkawada Police Station,
                              Dist. Yavatmal
                              (At present Central Prison, Yavatmal)

                                            VERSUS

RESPONDENTS                 : 1] State of Maharashtra,
                                 Through Advisory Board of Government
                                 of Maharashtra, Home Department
                                 (Special), Second Floor, Main Building,
                                 Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

                               2] Collector and District Magistrate,
                                  Yavatmal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri A. K. Bhangade, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Shri S. S. Doifode, Addl. P. P. and Shri M. J. Khan, A.P.P. for the
          respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE and G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE : JULY 01, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Although, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made

stranuous efforts to convince us that there is live link in the last 2 334 criwp872 21(J).odt

criminal activity of the petitioner and the object sought to be

achieved by the preventive detention, we find that there is absence of

live link between the two in the present case. Besides there is no

explanation of the delay given by the Detaining Authority nor the

facts and circumstances of the case justify the delay taken place in

the present case.

2. The order of preventive detention has been passed on

30.09.2021 whereas the last of the crimes registered against the

petitioner was of 27.03.2021. Even the confidential statements of

two witnesses refer to the incidents of March-2021 and 25.06.2021.

Thus, there is delay of not less than three months in the present case,

which has not been explained in any manner by the Detaining

Authority.

3. The delay so caused in the present case, in our

considered view, has the effect of snapping live link with the criminal

activities of the petitioner and therefore, we are of the view that this

aspect of the matter has vitiated the satisfaction reached by the

Detaining Authority. This is the view which we have already taken in 3 334 criwp872 21(J).odt

the previous case between Ajay @ Golu Shyam Solanki .vs. State of

Maharashtra and another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 807 of 2021,

decided on 27.06.2022 involving similar facts.

4. There is one more ground put forward by the learned

counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned preventive

detention order. He submits that the confidential statements of the

witnesses were not verified nor were seen by the Detaining Authority

as requisite endorsements of the verification made by the police

officer and the statements having been seen by the Detaining

Authority both, are absent in the copies of the statements supplied to

the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that on this count also the

impugned order is bad in law. He draws support from the case in

Gokul Sahabrao Sabale .vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune and

others, reported in 2017 All M.R. (Cri.) 1051, wherein relying upon

the case in Sanjay Ramlal Shahu .vs. State of Maharashtra and

another, Criminal Writ Petition No. 768/2015, decided on

01.02.2006, the Division Bench has held that there was no proper

reaching of subjective satisfaction of the Authority.

4 334 criwp872 21(J).odt

5. The copies of two confidential statements which were

supplied to the petitioner are placed on record by the petitioner.

They do not bear any endorsement of verification made by the police

officer and further endorsement they having been seen by the

Detaining Authority. These facts, in our considered view, would

amount to either considering some material which was not verified

for its genuineness or non-consideration of the material though

relevant. In either of these eventualities, the subjective satisfaction

reached by the Detaining Authority would have to be termed as

perverse. Therefore, on this additional ground also, we find that the

impugned preventive detention order is illegal.

6. The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

Clauses (ii) and (iii), which are reproduced thus :-

(ii) Quash and set aside the order of detention passed by the respondent no.2 dated 30.09.2021 D. O. No. PoI/Desk-12/ws/990/2021 Office of the District Magistrate, Yavatmal, date 30 September, 2021

(iii) Quash and set aside the Final order No. MPDA-1021/CR-325/Spl. 3B in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug 5 334 criwp872 21(J).odt

Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Mah. No. LV of 1981), the Government of Maharashtra hereby approves the order of District Magistrate, Yavatmal D.O. No. Home/PoI/Desk-12/WS/990/21 dated 30th September, 2021 made in respect of Shri Sanjay Soma Shinde, R/o Tadumari, Tq. Kelapur, P.S. Pandharkawada, Dist. Yavatmal to be detained under the said order.

Petitioner - Sanjay Soma Shinde be released

forthwith if not required in any other crime.

7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

                                   (G.A.SANAP, J.)              (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

                      Diwale




Digitally signed byPARAG
PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE
Signing Date:05.07.2022
10:51
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter