Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6151 Bom
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2022
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
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!