Bombay High Court
Amol @ Guddu S/O Sevakar Khorgade vs The Commissioner Of Police Nagpur ... on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2023
Amol alias Guddu s/o Sevakar Khorgade,
Aged about 35 years, Occ : Business,
R/o Flat No. 601, Green, Levrage Colony, .. Petitioner
P. Stn. Koradi, Nagpur City.
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur
Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Addl. Chief Secretary to
Government of Maharashtra,Mantralaya,
Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
.. Respondents
3. The Superintendent, Nagpur Central
Prison, Nagpur (petitioner is presently
detained at Nagpur central prison)
4. The Superintendent, Kolhapur Central
Prison, Kalamba (to be detained at
Kolhapur Central prison as per committal
order )
Shri. Shashank Manohar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri. V. A. Thakare, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10/03/2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 14/03/2023
KOLHE PAGE 1 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
JUDGMENT (Per : Bharat P. Deshpande J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2) The petitioner is challenging order of detention
passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons
engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (here-
in-after referred to as "the Act of 1981") issued by respondent No.1 on
08/11/2022, mainly on two grounds. Firstly, such order is passed
without application of mind and on the basis of stale instances.
Secondly, petitioner has been acquitted in all the matters referred in
the grounds of detention, which were prior to 2016 and had no
connection at all with the sole incident of the year 2022, wherein even
charge-sheet is not filed against the petitioner.
(3) Shri. Shashank Manohar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner raised only two grounds. It is his contention that
detaining Authority though referred earlier cases from the year 2012
KOLHE PAGE 2 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
to 2015, as found in para 4 of the grounds of detention, what was
placed before him was only the copies of reports in those matters. Had
the Authorities placed the outcome of such matters i.e. acquittal of the
petitioner in all those matters, there would have been a different
conclusion than the one which is challenged in the present petition.
(4) Shri. Shashank Manohar, learned counsel then
submits that even though the only incident which has been relied upon
in the grounds of detention and more specifically in para 7, refers the
FIR vide Crime No.23/2022 registered at Sadar Police Station dated
19/01/2022, and charge-sheet bearing No.243/2022 filed on
10/06/2022, did not named the petitioner as one of the accused in the
said FIR and also in the charge-sheet. Petitioner was in fact arrested
subsequent to filing of the said charge-sheet and that too on the basis
of vague allegations. Till date supplementary charge-sheet disclosing
name of petitioner as one of the accused, is not filed in the said matter.
He then would submit that acquittal of the petitioner in all earlier
matters is in fact a circumstance which ought to have been informed to
the detaining Authority and not bringing it to the notice, shows the
suppression of valuable material which further show non-application
of mind.
KOLHE PAGE 3 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
(5) Shri. Shashank Manohar, learned counsel then
relied upon following decisions :-
1. Khaja Bilal Ahmed vs. State of Telangana and
others, (2020) 13 SCC 632.
2. Ramesh vs. State of Gujrat and others, AIR 1989
SC 1881.
3. Deepak Dattu Suryawanshi vs. Commissioner of
Police and others, 2017(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.)588.
4. Baliram s/o Namdeo Bedke vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others, (Cri.W.P.No. 539/2020
decided on 03/08/2020.)
(6) Learned APP while supporting the detention order
would submit that the petitioner is habitual offender and involved in
illegal activities of sand mining, sand theft, preparing forged invoices
etc. and detaining Authority has considered various aspects including
present offence registered at Sadar Police Station vide Crime
No.23/2022. He would submit that investigation in the said matter is
still going on though charge-sheet is filed against 22 accused persons.
However, he admitted that though the present petitioner was arrested
subsequent to filing of the charge-sheet, till date supplementary
charge-sheet is not filed against him and others.
KOLHE PAGE 4 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
(7) The reply-affidavit is also filed on behalf of the
respondent No.1. Rival contentions fall for consideration.
(8) The detention order is dated 08/11/2022, wherein
respondent No.1 in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section
(1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1981, directed the petitioner to be
detained in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba under the conditions
including condition as to maintenance and discipline laid down in the
Act of 1981. The grounds of detention are also dated 08/11/2022 in
accordance with Section 8 of the Act of 1981. Such grounds of
detention shows that since the year 2012, the petitioner is engaging in
commission of violent and desperate activities. The alleged crimes
committed by the petitioner are in nature of sand smuggling and was
involved as part of group of persons preparing of forged documents,
unauthorized extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up
or disposal of sand along with its transportation, storing and selling or
abetting to such offences. While doing so, the petitioner, has used
criminal force, assault to deter public servant from discharging their
official duties. It is then claimed that by such acts, the petitioner have
created terror in the minds of the people residing in the area including
their life and liberty and disturbance due to such criminal activities. It
KOLHE PAGE 5 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
also created environmental damages causing changes in the course of
rivers, flood like situation in the adjoining areas, due to sand
extraction and mining.
(9) The grounds for detention further shows in para 3
and 4 that the petitioner was found involved in various offences
pertaining to Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code and
Chapter VII of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 particulars of offences in which petitioner was involved are
shown in para 4 in a tabular form which reads thus :-
Date of
"Sr. P.Stn. & C. C. No. &
Under Sections Offence / Remarks
No. Cr. No. Date
FIR
1 Khaparkheda
86/2012
Nagpur Rural 379, 34 IPC 30/01/2012 Sand Theft
02/05/2012
18/2012
2 Saoner
290/2012
Nagpur Rural 379, 186, 34 IPC 06/12/2012 Sand Theft
24/12/2012
75/2012
3 Khapa,
313/2013
Nagpur Rural 379, 34 IPC 19/09/2013 Sand Theft
16/10/2013
57/2013
4 Khaprkheda,
007/2014
Nagpur Rural 379, 109, 34 IPC 10/11/2013 Sand Theft
07/01/2014
156/2013
5 Saoner,
353, 379, 109, 504, 213/2016
Nagpur Rural 19/11/2015 Sand Theft"
506, 34 IPC 09/06/2016
210/2015
KOLHE PAGE 6 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
(10) The grounds of detention further shows that the
allegations of such past offences were referred, but not considered for
the purpose of passing of order for detention. The only offence which
was considered for passing detention order is found in para 7 which
reads thus :-
Date of
Sr. P.Stn. & C. C. No.
Under Sections Offence / Remarks
No. Cr. No. & Date
FIR
1 Sadar 465, 466, 467, 468, 19/01/2022 2439/2022 Court
23/2022 471, 420, 34 IPC r/w 10/06/2022 Pending and
Sec.48(7), 48(8) of further
Maharashtra Land investigation
Revenue Code, 1966
Section 4, 21 of Mines
and Mineral
(Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957
(11) The grounds of detention in para 7 shows details of
Crime No.23/2022 registered at Sadar Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 34
of the IPC and Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 and Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Mineral
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
All the allegations in para 7, are in connection with other
accused persons who were arrested. Similarly, it shows seizure of
KOLHE PAGE 7 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
vehicles allegedly involved in transportation of the sand. It further
shows that on 04/11/2022, petitioner filed bail application before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was allowed on 07/11/2022 with a
direction to release the petitioner on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25000/-
with one solvent surety in the like amount. Finally in para No.7.1.12,
the authorities as recorded thus :-
"7.1.12. After going through the facts of the above
crime, it becomes clear that you have created terror in the
minds of public in that area and disturbed the public orders
and you are a known sand smuggler who individually and
as a part of group of persons is engaged in and abets
unauthorized extraction, removal, collection, replacement,
picking up or disposal of sand and its transportation,
storing and selling or commits or attempts to commit or
abets the commission of offences in respect of sand."
(12) The above observations in para 7 of the grounds of
detention would show that all the allegations are with regard to illegal
sand mining or transportation and the offences including abetment
under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act,1957.
(13) Thus, offences though against environment and
particularly against the State Authorities being sand is a property of
the State, has nothing to do with public peace or creating any fear in
the minds of local people or creating any terror in the society.
KOLHE PAGE 8 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is only
solitary case, which is now referred for the consideration of passing
detention order, in which the name of the present petitioner is not
figuring in the FIR. A complaint is basically against one Rahul Khanna
who negotiated with the complainant and produced fake royalty
receipt. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.9900/- to Rahul
Khanna only. Subsequently many persons/suspects were arrested in
the said crime and a charge-sheet was also filed. It is also a fact that
subsequently petitioner was arrested on the basis of same
statements/alleged confessions of the co-accused persons, however, he
has been granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(14) In the case of Khaja Bilal Ahmed (supra), similar
contentions were raised with regard to earlier criminal matters
pending against the said petitioner which are referred in para 9. The
affidavit filed by detaining Authority shows that such earlier cases
were only referred, but did not relied upon for the purpose of passing
of detention order, which is clear from para 10. While dealing with
such contentions, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 20, 21, 22
and 23 as under :-
KOLHE PAGE 9 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
"20. The order of detention in the present case contains
a reference to fourteen cases which were instituted against the
appellant between 2007 and 2016. The chart provided on
behalf of the State Government which has been extracted
earlier indicates that out of the fourteen cases, five cases which
pertain to 2012 were transferred to the SIT for investigation;
there being no change in that position. Four cases pertaining to
2007 are pending trial. The appellant has been acquitted in four
cases of 2009, 2011, and 2012. The case of 2016 was
compromised in a Lok Adalat on 8-9-2017.
21. In Sama Aruna v State of Telangana,(2018) 12 SCC
150, this Court while construing the provisions of the Telangana
Offenders Act, 1986 held : (SCC pp. 157-58, para 16)
"16. Obviously, therefore, the power to detain,
under the 1986 Act can be exercised only for
preventing a person from engaging in, or pursuing or
taking some action which adversely affects or is likely
to affect adversely the maintenance of public order;
or for preventing him from making preparations for
engaging in such activities. There is little doubt that
the conduct or activities of the detenu in the past
must be taken into account for coming to the
conclusion that he is going to engage in or make
preparations for engaging in such activities, for many
such persons follow a pattern of criminal activities.
But the question is how far back? There is no doubt
that only activities so far back can be considered as
furnish a cause for preventive detention in the
present. That is, only those activities so far back in
the past which lead to the conclusion that he is likely
to engage in or prepare to engage in such activities in
the immediate future can be taken into account. In
Golam Hussain v. State of W.B. (1974) 4 SCC 530,
this Court observed as follows: (SCC p.534, para 5)
"5. ......No authority, acting rationally, can be
satisfied, subjectively or otherwise, of future
mischief merely because long ago the detenu
had done something evil. To rule otherwise is to
sanction a simulacrum of a statutory
requirement. But no mechanical test by
counting the months of the interval is sound. It
all depends on the nature of the acts relied on,
KOLHE PAGE 10 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
grave and determined or less serious and
corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long,
on the reason for the delay in taking preventive
action, like information of participation being
available only in the course of an investigation.
We have to investigate whether the causal
connection has been broken in the
circumstances of each case."
Suffice it to say that in any case, incidents which are
said to have taken place nine to fourteen years earlier, cannot
form the basis for being satisfied in the present that the detenu
is going to engage in, or make preparation for engaging in such
activities." (Emphasis supplied)
22. In the facts of that case, the Court held that the
order of detention was passed on stale grounds, which could
not have been considered as relevant for arriving at the
subjective satisfaction that the detenu must be detained. This
Court held thus :
"17. ......... The detention order must be based on a
reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a
person based on his past conduct in light of the
surrounding circumstances. The live and proximate
link that must exist between the past conduct of a
person and the imperative need to detain him must
be taken to have been snapped in this case. A
detention order which is founded on stale incidents,
must be regarded as an order of punishment for a
crime, passed without a trial, though purporting to be
an order of preventive detention. The essential
concept of preventive detention is that the detention
of a person is not to punish him for something he has
done but to prevent him from doing it. See G.
Reddeiah v. State of A.P. and P.U. Iqbal v. Union of
India. (Emphasis supplied)"
23. In the present case, the order of detention states
that the fourteen cases were referred to demonstrate the
"antecedent criminal history and conduct of the appellant". The
order of detention records that a "rowdy sheet" is being
maintained at PS Rain Bazar of Hyderabad City and the
KOLHE PAGE 11 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
appellant "could not mend his criminal way of life" and
continued to indulge in similar offences after being released on
bail. In the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, the
detaining authority recorded that these cases were "referred by
way of his criminal background... (and) are not relied upon".
The detaining authority stated that the cases which were
registered against the appellant between 2009 and 2016 "are
not at all considered for passing the detention order" and were
"referred by way of his criminal background only". This
averment is plainly contradictory. The order of detention does,
as a matter of fact, refer to the criminal cases which were
instituted between 2007 and 2016. In order to overcome the
objection that these cases are stale and do not provide a live
link with the order of detention, it was contended that they were
not relied on but were referred to only to indicate the
antecedent background of the detenu. If the pending cases
were not considered for passing the order of detention, it defies
logic as to why they were referred to in the first place in the
order of detention. The purpose of the Telangana Offenders
Act 1986 is to prevent any person from acting in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For this purpose,
Section 3 prescribes that the detaining authority must be
satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to indulge in
illegal activities in the future and act in a manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. The satisfaction to be arrived
at by the detaining authority must not be based on irrelevant or
invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of relevant
material; material which is not stale and has a live link with the
satisfaction of the detaining authority. The order of detention
may refer to the previous criminal antecedents only if they have
a direct nexus or link with the immediate need to detain an
individual. If the previous criminal activities of the appellant
could indicate his tendency or inclination to act in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then it may have
a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority. However, in the absence of a clear indication of a
causal connection, a mere reference to the pending criminal
cases cannot account for the requirements of Section 3. It is
not open to the detaining authority to simply refer to stale
incidents and hold them as the basis of an order of detention.
Such stale material will have no bearing on the probability of
the detenu engaging in prejudicial activities in the future."
KOLHE PAGE 12 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
(15) We have gone through the observations of the Apex
Court as quoted above and found that similar circumstances are found
in the present matter.
(16) Shri. Manohar, learned counsel pointed out that all
earlier cases referred in para 4 of the grounds of detention were
decided by the concerned Courts and in all those matters, petitioner
have been acquitted, much before passing of the detention order. Such
orders are produced along with the present petition from page 87
onwards. Learned APP did not dispute about these facts and more
specifically acquittal of the petitioner in all those matters much prior to
passing of detention order. On careful perusal of the grounds of
detention, we also observed that the detaining Authority did not refer
to such judgments/acquittals. In fact record would show that such
judgments/acquittal orders were not brought to the notice of the
detaining Authority which is clear from Annexure-B at page 67. First
12 cases referred in the above Annexures show that only copy of FIR or
the complaint was placed before the detaining Authority, therefore, it
is clear from the record that if these orders/acquittal were produced
before the concerned Authority, there would have been different
conclusion. This further shows that the detaining Authority failed to
KOLHE PAGE 13 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
apply its mind or to call for the details of the said cases before passing
the impugned order of detention.
(17) The above observations further show that stale
instances have been considered as relevant for arriving at subjective
satisfaction which to our mind is again unwarranted and show non-
application of mind. In other words, it shows that the detaining
Authority had already made-up its mind to detain the petitioner on
such material without keeping mind open by considering the relevant
material.
(18) In the case of Ramesh vs. State of Gujrat (supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar circumstances,
observed in para 12 and 13 as under :-
"12. We shall now pass on to the second contention. It
has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the criminal
case under Sr. No. 2 of the table namely Crime No. 357/87 of
Sayajiganj Police Station registered under the provisions of
Prohibition Act is stated to be pending whilst in fact the
accused (detenu) has already been acquitted on 31.8.88 i.e.
earlier to the passing of the impugned order and that the fact
that the accused has been acquitted in that case either has
been withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has this
material fact of acquittal been placed before the detaining
authority it might have influenced the mind of the detaining
authority one way or the other on the question whether or not
to make the detention order.
KOLHE PAGE 14 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
13. As rightly submitted by Mr. Parekh, the
withholding of the vital fact that the detenu has been
acquitted in that criminal case, resulting in the non-
application of the mind of the detaining authority to the said
fact vitiates the impugned order as ruled in Dharamdas
Shamlal Agarwal v. The Police Commr.,(1989) 1 JT 580:
(AIR 1989 SC 1282)."
(19) In the case of Deepak Suryawanshi (supra) a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court observed in para 10 and 14 as under :-
"10. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the detaining
authority was not made aware and conscious of the
Judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions Judge,
Pune in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2004 dated 15th February
2011 acquitting the Petitioner i.e. detenu from the offence
(Crime No.63 of 2003) punishable under Section 399 of the
I.P.C. The Supreme Court in the case of Dharamdas Shamlal
Agarwal vs. The Police Commissioner and another, supra,
while considering the contention of the detenu therein that
the acquittal of the detenu in two of the cases shown in the
table appended to grounds, had not been brought to the
notice of detaining authority and on the other hand they were
withheld and the detaining authority was given to understand
that the trial of those cases was pending, has taken a view
that, the non-placing of the material fact namely the acquittal
of detenu in the two cases resulting in non-application of
mind of the detaining authority to the said fact vitiated the
requisite subjective satisfaction, rendering the detention
order invalid. It will be gainful to reproduce Para 12 of the
said Judgment of the Supreme Court, which reads thus:
"12. From the above decisions it emerges that the
requisite subjective satisfaction the formation of which is
a condition precedent to passing of a detention order
will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have
bearing on the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the
detaining authority one way or the other and influenced
his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the
sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by
KOLHE PAGE 15 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
the detaining authority before issuing the detention
order. It is clear to our mind that in the case on hand, at
the time when the detaining authority passed the
detention order this vital fact, namely, the acquittals of
the detenu in case Nos. mentioned at Serial Nos. 2 and
3 have not been brought to his notice and on the other
hand they were withheld and the detaining authority was
given to understand that the trial of those cases were
pending. The explanation given by the learned counsel
for the respondents, as we have already pointed out,
cannot be accepted for a moment. The result is that the
non-placing of the material fact namely the acquittal of
detenu in the above-said two cases resulting in non-
application of minds of the detaining authority to the
said fact has vitiated the requisite subjective
satisfaction, rendering the impugned detention order
invalid."
14. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs
and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dharamdas
Shamlal Agarwal vs. The Police Commissioner and another,
supra, that once the requisite subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority is vitiated due to non-placing the acquittal
order of detenu before the detaining authority, the detention
order renders invalid. In our considered opinion, in the
present case for more than one reason including non-placing
of the order of acquittal of detenu i.e. Petitioner in Criminal
Appeal No.71 of 2004 Mr. Deepak Dattu Suryawanshi vs.
The State of Maharashtra decided on 15th February 2011,
and also on other two grounds, the requisite subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority stands vitiated,
rendering the detention order invalid."
(20) From the above decisions of the Apex Court, as well
as, co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is clear that such observations
are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the matter in
hand, as the Authority though referred to cases prior to 2015, did not
rely upon it. The question as to the conduct or activity of the detenu
KOLHE PAGE 16 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
in past must be taken into account without coming to the conclusion
i.e. going to engage in, or make preparation for engaging in such
activities, however, how far back, is to be take into account.
(21) In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of Sama
Aruna vs. State of Telangana (2018) 12 SCC 150 , observed that
incidents which are said to have taken place nine to fourteen years
earlier, cannot form the basis for being satisfied in the present that the
detenu is going to engage in, or make preparation for engaging in such
activities.
(22) In the present matter para 4 of the grounds of
detention show five cases from 2012 to 2015 registered against the
detenu in connection with theft of sand, which are ranging from eight
to ten years earlier from the date of detention order. Specifically when
in all cases detenu has been acquitted, cannot form the basis for being
satisfied that the detenu is going to engage in, or make preparation for
engaging in such activities.
(23) A contention of Shri. Manohar, learned counsel on
both counts needs to be accepted as detaining Authority failed to apply
KOLHE PAGE 17 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
its mind in proper perspective. Similarly, the orders of acquittal in all
earlier matters were not considered which show non-application of
mind. Subjective satisfaction stands vitiated for the simple reason that
there is no live nexus between the earlier matters with the referred one
for passing detention order. Similarly, present petitioner is not named
in the said FIR of 2022 and even though he was subsequently arrested
and released on bail, till date no efforts have been made by the
Investigating Authority either to include his name in the said crime, or
to file supplementary charge-sheet against him.
(24) The statement of two witnesses are found referred
in para 8 of the grounds of detention. Witness 'A' states that he know
the petitioner being a sand smuggler and notorious, he would not
come forward to narrate the facts as there is threat to his life. This
witness refers to one incident of August,2022 alleging that the
petitioner and his drivers transported sand through the field of witness
'A' and when he questioned during midnight they threatened him,
abused and then left the spot. Witness 'B' claims to be a truck driver
by profession, who also claimed that he know the activities of the
petitioner, but due to threat to his life, he will not come forward to
state anything against the petitioner. This witness refers to same
KOLHE PAGE 18 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
incident in the second week of September, 2022 and at that time the
petitioner obstructed him and threatened with dire consequences,
assaulted with fists blows which are created fear in the mind of the
said witness.
(25) Both these statements show that the petitioner
allegedly gave threats to these witnesses and there is fear in the mind
of villagers about sand smugglers. First of all such alleged instances
disclosed by witness 'A' and 'B' comes within the ambit of Chapter XVI
and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. However, a detention order show
that the petitioner is a sand smuggler and not a dangerous person as
tried to be projected by the concerned Authority as far as offences
under IPC are concerned.
(26) Learned APP though tried to support the detention
order, failed to satisfy the reasons/grounds on which such detention
order is based. The circumstances which are highlighted and discussed
above would clearly goes to show that the order impugned herein is
unsustainable in the eyes of law, as it clearly affects the personal
liberty of the petitioner without following due process of law. Having
said so, we hold that the detention order dated 08/11/2022 is liable to
KOLHE PAGE 19 OF 20
Judgment WP 49.2023.odt
be quashed and set aside on the above said grounds.
(27) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
detention order dated 08/11/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner, namely, Amol alias Guddu s/o Sevakar Khorgade shall
be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
(28) Rule made absolute in above terms.
[ BHARAT P. DESHPANDE J. ] [ VINAY JOSHI, J. ]
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
Signing Date:14.03.2023
11:04
KOLHE PAGE 20 OF 20
