Bombay High Court
Pravin @ Auto @ Sonu Gopal Ingle vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its So Home Dept. ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-NAG:8234-DB
1 wp114.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.114/2024
Pravin @ Auto @ Sonu Gopal Ingle,
age about 32 Yrs., Occ. Auto Driving,
R/o Post Colony, Kaulkhed, Akola,
Distt. Akola. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Section Officer,
Home Department (Special),
2nd Floor, Mantralaya, Madam
Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru
Chowk, Mumbai 400 032.
2. District Magistrate, Akola,
The Office of District Collector,
Akola, Distt. Akola. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Chutke, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
----------------
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ .
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 8.7.2024.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 1.8.2024.
JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Heard Mr. O.Y. Kashid, learned Advocate for the petitioner
and Mr. A.R. Chutke, learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Rule.
2 wp114.2024
2. The petitioner is challenging his detention order
dated 3.10.2023 passed by respondent No.2 and confirmed by
respondent No.1 on 11.10.2023.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner challenges the
impugned order, which appears to have been confirmed by the
State Government by order dated 11.10.2023, on the ground that
the impugned order passed by the detaining authority is based on
the non-application of mind and without adhering to the
statutory procedure. The grounds of detention which have been
given appear to have been based on two offences namely Crime
No.0403/2023 under Sections 4/25 of Arms Act and Crime
No.0351/2203 under Sections 324, 504 and 506 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority has
also considered in-camera statements of two witnesses "A" and
"B". It is submitted that detaining authority had not considered
that in both the offences, which are still under investigation, the
petitioner has been released after giving notice in first offence and
3 wp114.2024
in another offence released on anticipatory bail. The contents of
the case would show that at the most there was 'law and order
situation' and the 'public order' was not disturbed requiring the
detention of petitioner. Further there was no proper verification
of in-camera statements by the detaining authority and only it is
'seen and verified' but there is no remark that the verification has
been properly done.
4. According to learned Advocate for the petitioner, the
order of approval to the order of detention is unsustainable in law
as it remains a mere formality to approve which is not the scheme
contemplated under the Act. The reasoned order or speaking
order is not given while approving the detention order by the
State Government. He has prayed to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submits that well reasoned
order has been passed by authorising the detention of the
petitioner. Petitioner was involved in both the offences which are
4 wp114.2024
under investigation. Even the preventive action was taken against
him from time to time but he has not curtailed his activities.
Therefore, he has prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. If we consider the facts of Crime No.0403/2023
under Sections 4/25 Arms Act it can be seen that the petitioner
was roaming on the public road with a sword and spreading terror.
This indicates that he wanted to create terror amongst people at
large. Another offence i.e. Crime No.0351/2023 is registered
under Sections 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
on the oral report lodged by one Milind Ukanda Pradhan. He
has stated that on 29.6.2023 in the afternoon at 2 p.m. when the
informant came to have lunch with his friends at Yash Dhaba,
Kaulkhed Chowk complainant and his friends were sitting on the
table and on the table in front of them, the petitioner was sitting
who was abusing the complainant then the petitioner came near
to the informant and caught his collar and hit him with beer
bottle on his head and fist blow on the left eye. When the
5 wp114.2024
informant started bleeding from his head and became dizzy he
called his friends who have came to his rescue and he was released
from the petitioner. At that time, the petitioner has given threats
saying that he will take care of the complainant. The informant
has lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner. Further in-camera
statements would show that in both the incidents threats were
given in public place. This is nothing but an act to establish
supremacy by creating terror in the mind of people at large so that
the petitioner can continue his illegal activities. Every
opportunity has been given to the petitioner to submit his
representation but he has not submitted it and it was informed on
11.10.2023 by the detaining authority that the right of
representation of the detenue to the detaining authority stands
terminated. He was given hearing before Advisory Board and the
detention order has been confirmed by the Advisory Board. No
illegality has been committed and, therefore, the petition deserves
to be dismissed.
6 wp114.2024
7. In the detention order the offences which are
considered are Crime No.0403/2023 under Sections 4/25 of
Arms Act in which he was not arrested and notice was issued.
The facts would show that the police received the information
that the petitioner was standing with a sharp iron weapon in hand
and entered the ring road and was walking on the public road in
front of banyan tree at Kaulkhed, Akola. Police staff went there
and petitioner was seen walking on public road with sword and
spreading terror, he was caught with the help of police staff and
taken into custody and seized the weapon which was in his hand,
at that time, he has stated his name as Pravin @ Auto @ Sonu
Gopal Ingle. At that time the petitioner was taken into custody
and the weapon was seized and offence was registered. After
registration of crime by giving letter of understanding the Court
has released him after giving direction to appear in the Court
while filing the chargesheet for this specified offence. If a person
is roaming with a sharp iron weapon then prima facie we can
consider that it would raise the problem of public order and not
7 wp114.2024
only law and order. In second offence i.e. Crime No.0351/2023
it appears that the incident had taken place on 30.6.2023. The
petitioner has used beer bottle and injured the complainant. In
said crime, the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail.
8. The statement of witnesses "A" and "B" would show
that the incidents had taken place in public place and said
witnesses were threatened by the petitioner by assaulting them in
public. Therefore, these incidents and facts would certainly show
that it is the public order that was disturbed.
9. The State Government has approved the detention
order which was passed by the District Magistrate. The grounds
of detention are given in detail. It is a well reasoned order. The
detailed order is already passed and the State has approved it.
Therefore, there is no specific provision in M.P.D.A. Act to give
the reasoned order of approval. Under the scheme contemplated
by the Act, the approval by the State Government to the reasoned
8 wp114.2024
order passed by the District Magistrate is sufficient. Hence there
is no substance in the contention of the petitioner about not
giving the reasoned or speaking order.
10. The petitioner has not come with a case that the
copies of in-camera statements have not been provided to him. If
we consider that statement of those witnesses were verified and
the verification has been categorically stated by the detaining
authority that is sufficient compliance. In Writ Petition
No.546/2023 (Hanif @ Illu Hafiz Ansari V/s. The State of
Maharashtra and others) this Court has distinguished between
the concept of public order as opposed to law and order by relying
upon the case of Kanu Biswas V/s. State of West Bengal reported
in (1972) 3 SCC 831. It was also considered that in fact, crimes
were not even felt to be of serious nature and felt to warrant
issuance of the notice under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of
Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Here it is to be noted
that the offences on which those observations have been made
9 wp114.2024
were under Section 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. here it is Section 4
punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. At the costs of
repetition, we would like to note the fact that the petitioner was
roaming in public place by holding sword i.e. sharp iron weapon
in hand. Based on said facts, Sheikh Hussain @ Shahrukh Shaikh
Fatru V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2023 DGLS
(Bombay) 3318, it has been observed that the detaining authority
himself recorded its subjective satisfaction that the statement of
witnesses were verified and it has interacted with A.C.P. who
verified such statements. Here said subjective satisfaction has
been arrived at. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further relies
on the judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.347/2023
(Mohammad Arbaz @ Sanu S/o Mohammad Israil @ Manja
Ansari V/s. State of Maharashtra and others) decided on
17.1.2023 which is on similar lines as to what ought to have been
considered and what has not been considered especially in respect
of subjective satisfaction.
10 wp114.2024
11. As afore-stated subjective satisfaction has been arrived
at on the basis of two witnesses as well as two in-camera
statements, we do not find that this is a fit case where we should
exercise our constitutional power to set aside the detention order.
We may also refer to the opinion that has been given by the
Advisory Board and the said opinion is made available to us
which shows that the petitioner was heard through video
conferencing and Advocate representing the petitioner was also
heard. The detention order has been confirmed taking into
consideration the opinion of Advisory Board as contemplated
under law and, therefore, we pass the following order:-
Criminal writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/08/2024 15:36:41
