Bombay High Court
Shakir Khan Zakir Khan vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary ... on 14 July, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
935-J-WP-916-2021.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.916 OF 2021
PETITIONER : Shakir Khan Zakir Khan
Aged About 27 years, Occ-Labour,
R/o Abad Nagar, Balapur, Akola
At Present Central Prison, Aurangabad
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Home Department
(Special) Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Akola, Dist Akola.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. N. Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner
Shri S. S. Doifode, Addl.PP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 14th JULY, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
3. It is seen that three crimes have been considered
along with two statements of confidential witnesses.
935-J-WP-916-2021.odt
4. Shri M. N. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in two crimes namely Crime no.501 of 2021
registered on 06.09.2021 and Crime no.386 of 2021 registered on
24.06.2021, the petitioner was not arrested and was allowed to go
only on intimation under Section 41(1)(a) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. He further submits that in Crime no.519 of
2020 registered on 15.09.2021, the last crime registered against
the petitioner, the petitioner was released on bail, but the copy of a
reasoned bail order was not placed before the returning authority.
He therefore submits that the satisfaction reached by the detaining
authority is vitiated on account of non consideration of relevant
material in the nature of a reasoned bail order and also the
decision of the Investigating Officer to not arrest the petitioner in
crimes, which were non bailable.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent nos.1 and 2 disagreeing with the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prejudice has
been caused, whatsoever to the petitioner by non consideration of
a reasoned bail order because the detaining authority has
considered the nature of allegations contained in the First
Information Report filed against the petitioner.
6. We do not think that the argument so submitted by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor can be accepted in view of
the opinion expressed by this Court in the cases of Ratnamala
Mukund Balkhande ..vs... State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
Criminal Writ Petition No.820 of 2021 decided on 01.07.2022,
935-J-WP-916-2021.odt
Hanif Karim Laluwale ..Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
Criminal Writ Petition No.75 of 2022, decided on 28.06.2022
and in the case of Vilas Kisan Pawar ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra
and Anr., Criminal Writ Petition No.915 of 2021, decided on
14.07.2022. The facts of the present case are in fact similar to the
facts involved in the said case, therefore, the issue involved in this
petition would stand covered by the view taken in those petitions,
which would mean that the impugned order cannot be sustained
in the eye of law, Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer Clause (i), which reads as under :
"(i) Pass any appropriate writ order or direction and
thereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated
28.10.2021 (Annexure No.I) passed by Respondent No.2,
Collector, Akola City, Akola."
7. The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required
in any other crime.
(G. A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
TAMBE
Digitally Signed By:ASHISH
ASHOKRAO TAMBE
Personal Assistant
to Hon'ble JUDGE
Signing Date:14.07.2022 20:16
