Sachin @ Bobby Sambhaji Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 816 Bom

SLJ                                                        51-wp-3642-2022.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3642 OF 2022

Sachin @ Bobby Sambhaji Shinde                           ... Petitioner

      V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Commissioner of Police, Solapur.
3. Senior Inspector of Police,
   Fouzdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur.
4. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Division -1,
   Solapur                                               ... Respondents

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. S.D Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

                                CORAM       :       A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                    PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

             ORDER RESERVED ON              :       6th JANUARY 2023
             ORDER PRONOUNCED ON            :       24th JANUARY 2023

JUDGMENT : (Per : Prakash D. Naik, J.)

1. The Petitioner has challenged the Order of Detention dated 12 th

July 2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur under the

Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers,

Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and

Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981

(for short, "M.P.D.A. Act"). The impugned Order has been issued with a

view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the

maintenance of the public Order.

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

2. Along with the Order of Detention, Petitioner was served upon

the Grounds of Detention dated 12th July 2022 and the documents relied

upon by the Detaining Authority while issuing the Order of Detention.

From the Grounds of Detention it is apparent that, the Detention is based

on C.R. No.231 of 2022 registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station,

Solapur, for offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 143, 147, 149,

504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code ( for short "IPC") read with Section 142 of

Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and statements of two witnesses recorded in-

camera and described as witness 'A' and witness 'B'.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sarda, appearing for Petitioner urged

two grounds to challenge the impugned Order of Detention. The first

ground advanced by learned Advocate for Petitioner is that, neither

C.R.No.231 of 2022 registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station,

Solapur, nor the statements of two witnesses affect the maintenance of

public Order. The incidents would at the most disturb the law and Order

situation. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') and other material

on record would show that, the Petitioner was not armed with any weapon.

Although it is alleged that, Complainant was assaulted and he went to Civil

Hospital for treatment, his injury certificate is not on record. The Petitioner

was not armed with any weapon. The statement of witness 'A' was recorded

on 2nd June 2022. He has referred to the alleged incident of first week of

April, 2022. Whereas, statement of witness 'B' was recorded on 4 th June

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

2022 and he has referred to the alleged incident of second week of April,

2022. The statements are false. There is no proper verification of

statements. In the FIR relating to C.R.No.231 of 2022 it is alleged that, the

Petitioner had allegedly entered the jurisdiction of Faujdar Chawadi Police

Station, Solapur, on 17th April 2022 in breach of externment Order. It is

difficult to believe that, the Petitioner had entered the area referred by two

witnesses in first week of April, 2022 and second week of April 2022. The

version of witness 'A' and 'B' do not inspire confidence.

4. Learned Advocate for Petitioner has relied upon the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. State of

Telangana and Others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 415 and the the decision of

this Court in the case of Lakhan Rohidas Jagtap Vs. The Commissioner of

Police, Pune & Others, reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 5261.

5. The second ground advanced by learned Advocate for

Petitioner is that, the Detaining Authority has considered the proposal sent

by sponsoring authority and thereby passed the Detention Order against the

detenu. The said proposal has not been supplied to the detenu, which has

affected the right of detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

In the Grounds of Detention it is stated that, the Detaining Authority have

gone through the proposal and other documents and satisfied about the

truthfulness of incident and fear expressed by the witnesses of in-camera

statements. Hence, it was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

supply a copy of proposal to the detenu.

6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that, incident referred to in C.R.No.231 of

2022 registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur and the

statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' affect the maintenance of public order. It

cannot be said that, statements of witnesses recorded in-camera are false.

The truthfulness of the statements was verified by higher authority. The

acts attributed to Petitioner in the incidents referred to by in-camera

witnesses and complainant in C.R.No.231 of 2022 are causing disturbance

to public order.

7. Learned A.P.P. has relied upon the decision of this Court in the

case of Smt. Zebunnisa Abdul Majid Vs. M.N.Singh and Others reported in

2001 CRI. L.J. 2759.

8. In reply to the second ground urged by Petitioner, learned A.P.P.

submitted that, it was not necessary to supply the copy of proposal to the

Petitioner. It is submitted that, the proposal is an internal communication

and it is not mandatory that, it should be supplied to detenu. The

documents which are relied upon for issuing the Order of Detention are

supplied to the Petitioner. Hence, there is no violation of the right of

detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned A.P.P. has relied upon the decision of this Court in the

case of Mohd. Aslam Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. M.N.Singh, Commissioner of

Police reported in Supp 1 BCR (Cri)585.

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

10. The Grounds of Detention stipulate that, the detention is based

on C.R.No.231 of 2022 registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station,

Solapur and statements of two in-camera witnesses referred to as witnesses

'A' and 'B'.

11. The Detaining Authority on the basis of material on record

placed before him has recorded subjective satisfaction that, the material

shows detenu's consistency of criminal activities. He has proved himself as

'Dangerous person' within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A.

Act. The C.R. mentioned in Paragraph No. 5.1 and in-camera statements in

Paragraph Nos. 5.3 and 5.4 are carefully considered by the Detaining

Authority and subjectively satisfied that, the Petitioner is acting in a manner

prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order. The Petitioner was externed

from two districts vide Order dated 16.12.2020. He was involved in C.R.

No.231 of 2022 registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur, by

committing breach of externment the Order accompanying him obstructed

the Police from discharging their duty. One of them grabbed the shirt's

collar of the Complainant/Police and pulled him. Petitioner pushed the

Complainant/Police Constable and assaulted him with kicks. Witness 'A' in

his statement dated 2nd June 2022 has stated that, the Petitioner had visited

his hotel along with his associates holding weapons, like knife and iron

pipe. He was threatened and questioned for not giving 'hafta' and demand

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

was made for 'hafta'. He was threatened that, he would be killed and his

hotel would be burnt. The Petitioner's associates damaged the articles from

the hotel with iron rod and hockey sticks. Customers from hotel ran away.

Neighbouring shopkeepers, customers, people moving on the road and

people living nearby gathered in front of hotel. The Petitioner rushed

towards the gathered people by threatening them with knife and his

associates assaulted the gathered people. People got frightened and started

running helter-skelter. While running some people fell down and

neighbouring shopkeepers shut down their shops. No one came for the

help of witness 'A'. He was assaulted and amount of Rs.2,000/- was taken

away by the Petitioner and his associates. Witness 'B' in his statement

dated 4th June 2022 has stated that, the Petitioner and his associates came

to his shop holding sword, iron pipe and lathies. They demanded

Rs.10,000/- from the witness. He was abused and threatened. Petitioner

gave blow of sword, which was evaded by the witness. Petitioner's

associates started pelting stones on the shops of said witness and other

shopkeepers. The shops were closed. Some persons were injured due to

pelting stones. People living nearby closed their doors, windows of houses.

People on the road ran away helter-skelter. Due to the fear and terror of

detenu and his associates, no one came for the help of witness. Damage

was caused to the shop of witness. The Petitioner forcibly took money from

the cash counter of shop run by the witness. He was threatened that, if he

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

makes complaint to Police, he would be killed. All the aforesaid incidents

definitely affects even tempo of the society, which would fall within the

purview of public Order. It is also pertinent to note that, as per Section 5A

of the M.P.D.A. Act, the grounds are severable when a Detention Order has

been made on two or more grounds, such Order of Detention shall be

deemed to be made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly

such Order shall not be deemed to be invalid of one ground is vague, non-

existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with

such person or invalid for any other reason. The in-camera statements were

verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The detaining Authority

in its Affidavit in reply has stated that, careful perusal of proposal dated

10.06.2022 and verification by A.C.P. Division-I, he was satisfied regarding

the truthfulness and genuineness of the incident and fear expressed by the

witnesses of in-camera statements. He believed that, the contents of in-

camera statements are true and taken into consideration for issuing

Detention Order. The truthfulness of statements was verified by Assistant

Commissioner of Police on 03.06.2022 and 06.06.2022. The verification of

in-camera statement by A.C.P. is sufficient to remove any doubt or suspicion

regarding statements of witnesses.

12. In the case of Lakhan Rohidas Jagtap Vs. The Commissioner of

Police, Pune & Others (supra) this Court had observed that, Assistant

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

Commissioner of Police while recording the statement of witness 'A' has only

mentioned that, the said witness was called in the office of Commissioner of

Police and inquiry about his name and address was made. In order to verify

his statement, the Assistant Commissioner of Police made inquiry with other

people residing in the vicinity and it was revealed that, the incident stated

by witness 'A' is correct. The Assistant Commissioner of Police has not

recorded satisfaction to the effect that, the incidents stated by the witnesses

are true and genuine. We have perused verification of the statement of

witnesses 'A' & 'B' recorded by Assistant Commissioner Police, Solapur and

we do not find any infirmity in the said verification. The verification by

Assistant Commissioner ascertains that, the statement of witness is

voluntary and without coercion. Enquiry with citizens from the area has

confirmed the incidents and it is also revealed that, people are not willing

to depose against detenu. Due to fear and terror of detenu and his

associates the identity of witness be kept secret. In the case of Smt.

Zebunnisa Abdul Majid V/s. M.N. Singh and Others (supra) it is observed

that, it is not necessary for the detaining Authority to expressly State in the

grounds of detention that, he had verified the contents of Statements and

found to be true. The Assistant Commissioner of Police has personally

inquired with both the witnesses and also verified the truthfulness of the

incidents.

13. In the case of Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. State of Telangana and

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

Others (supra) the apex Court has observed that, the expression 'law and

Order', 'Public Order' and 'security of State' are different from one another.

For 'public order' to be disturbed, there must in turn be public disorder.

Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach

of trust certainly affects 'law and order' but before it can be said to affect

'public order', it must affect the community or the public at large. The

factual matrix of the incidents considered by Detaining Authority are

squarely covered by the concept of public Order.

14. The other submission advanced by learned Advocate for

Petitioner is that, the copy of proposal is not supplied to Petitioner. The

detaining Authority has rightly stated that, proposal is an internal

communication and therefore it is not mandatory that, the report of

sponsoring Authority should be supplied to the detenu. In the case of

Mohd. Aslam Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. M. N.Singh, Commissioner of Police

(supra) this Court has observed that, the detenu is not entitled for the copy

of the proposal. The detenu has got no right to demand the copies of other

documents since they are not vital documents. We find that, all the

documents on the basis of which Order of Detention has been issued are

supplied to the detenu/Petitioner. The proposal is administrative

communication between sponsoring authority and the detaining Authority.

The detaining Authority has relied upon C.R.No.231 of 2022 registered

with Faujdar Chavdi Police Station and statements of witness 'A' and 'B'. All

SLJ 51-wp-3642-2022.doc

the documents relating to the aforesaid grounds are supplied to Petitioner.

It was not necessary to supply proposal to detenu.

15. In the light of aforesaid observations, we do not find any merits

in the contentions of Petitioner and hence, the Petition is required to be

dismissed.

ORDER

i) Criminal Writ Petition No.3642 of 2022 is dismissed.

ii) Rule is discharged.

                          [ PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ]                        [ A.S. GADKARI, J. ]

           Digitally
           signed by
           SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI   LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT    JAMADAR
           Date:
JAMADAR    2023.01.24
           14:24:56
           +0530