Bombay High Court
Akshay S/O Nagesh Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ... on 27 August, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:9568-DB
1 crwp.362.24-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 362 OF 2024
Akshay S/o. Nagesh Patil,
Age 23 Yrs., Occu.- Labour,
R/o. At - Indira Nagar, Jattarodi No.1,
Near Gadling Kirana Stores, Nagpur,
Police Station - Imamwada, Dist. Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through The Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur City, Tah. - Nagpur, Dist. -Nagpur.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Assistant Commissioner
of Police, Zone-IV, Sakkardhara,
Nagpur, Dist.-Nagpur.
4. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station Imamwada, Dist.-Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. N. Nandeshwar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 14.08.2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 27.08.2024.
JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 crwp.362.24-J.odt
2. The petitioner/detenue has preferred this petition questioning
the preventive detention order passed against him on 16.02.2024 by
respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Police, Nagpur. The said detention
order has been passed in exercise of the powers 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
(the MPAD Act, 1981). The said detention order has been passed as the
detenue is the dangerous person.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned
order which appears to have been confirmed by the State Government by
order dated 16.02.2024. The order challenged is based on the non-
application of mind and without adhering to the statutory procedure. The
grounds of detention which have been given appeared to have been based
on two offences namely Crime No.276/2023 for the offences punishable
under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code
and Crime No.608/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 399
and 402 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms
Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The first offence does
not come under chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code on the basis
of which, as per Section 2(b) of the MPDA Act, the detention order cannot
be passed. The approval is not issued within twelve days. The approval
3 crwp.362.24-J.odt
order is not communicated and it is also the ground of petitioner that the
order must be forwarded within six weeks to the Advisory Board. The said
compliance is not there. The detaining authority has also considered in-
camera statements of two witnesses. It is submitted that detaining
authority had not considered that in both the offences which are pending
before the Court and the petitioner has been released on bail and the bail
order appears to have not been produced before the detaining authority.
The contents of the case would show at the most that there was law and
order situation and not the public order was disturbed requiring the
detention of the petitioner. Further there was no proper verification of in-
camera statements by the detaining authority and only that it is seen and
verified, but there is no remark that the verification has been properly done.
4. Mr. S. S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the
contentions of the petitioner. He specifically marked that the detaining
authority has considered the details of the bail orders and mentioned the
same in the 9.1.5 and 9.2.4 in the detention order. With regards to the non-
fulfillment of the subjective satisfaction the Counsel further placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Golam Hussain alias
Gama Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Ors. [(1974) 4 SCC 530] , in
which it was observed that the basic imperative of truth beyond reasonable
doubt does not apply to subjective satisfaction component of imprisonment
for reasons of internal security. Thus, discharge or want of any evidence or
4 crwp.362.24-J.odt
witnesses not coming forward or grant of bail, would not impact the
decision based on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for the
purpose of issuing orders under Section 3 of the Act. Learned A.P.P. further
states that the petitioner formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the
house of the woman complainant with swords and wooden sticks in their
hands, causing panic in the minds of the complainant and the people of the
area and disturbing the public order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The two offences are considered by the detaining authority, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the first offence cannot be
considered as per Section 2(b) of MPDA Act as it does not come under
Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian penal Code and Chapter V of the Indian
Arms Act. On perusal of the contents of the First Information Report, it
appears that one Jotsna Parchake has lodged the complaint against the
petitioner. The petitioner along with other co-accused went to the house of
the complainant with deadly weapons i.e. sword and wooden stick in search
of the nephew of complainant Sunny, to assault him. Earlier the petitioner
called on the mobile phone of Sunny and when his sister took the phone
call, he asked her why Sunny came in his house at night and he will show
by coming at his house with other persons, accordingly, the petitioner went
there with the co-accused and he asked the complainant where is Sunny
and showed the sword and told her that she should tell him whereabouts of
Sunny, otherwise, he will kill her. They created terror in said area by
5 crwp.362.24-J.odt
showing weapons. At that time, the petitioner and his associates heard the
siren of police and they fled away. On the complaint, the crime is
registered. In said offence, the sword and wooden sticks were seized. All
the accused persons have obtained the anticipatory bail. This petitioner has
also obtained the anticipatory bail in said crime.
6. The facts of the case is that if a person is roaming with sword in
his hand in public, then prima facie, we can consider that it would raise
public order and not only law and order situation though the offence does
not come under Chapter XVI and XVII, the petitioner along with his friends
went in the house of the complainant with intention to commit the offence
and created terror in said area. It would raise public order and not only law
and order situation.
7. In the second offence Crime No.608/2023, the crime is
registered under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. In this case, the information was
received by the police about preparation of dacoity and the raid was
conducted, the petitioner along with other co-accused found there in
suspicious condition. They were in preparation of committing dacoity. They
were conspiring near one Saoji Dhaba. When one of them was arrested, the
pistol was found in his possession and all others fled away from the spot,
but thereafter, they were arrested one by one and they confessed that they
were under the preparation to commit dacoity. The chilly powder in a
6 crwp.362.24-J.odt
plastic bag, one nylon rope, one magazine, pistol and one iron knife were
seized from one of the accused in recovery panchanama during the custody.
The accused was arrested and was released on bail on 05.10.2023. The
order of the bail is considered while passing the detention order. The
petitioner was in preparation of dacoity and weapons were seized.
8. The statements of witness 'A' and 'B' would show that the
incident has taken place in public and said witnesses were threatened and
assaulted by the petitioner in public. Witness 'A' has stated that in the third
week of December, 2023 at night, the witness was returning from his work
to home, he was standing near his bicycle and talking on phone, at that
time, the petitioner asked him with whom he is talking and when he told
him that he is talking with his brother-in-law, the co-accused shouted at him
loudly and asked him why he was talking in a loud manner whether he is
not knowing them. When the witness asked him not to abuse then he
slapped him for three to four times and beat him with fist blows and kick.
When passers-by gathered there, he snatched the mobile of the witness and
threw it. When the people gathered there, he took out the gupti from his
pocket and showing it to the crowd, he asked them to go away from there
otherwise, he will kill them. Because of loud noise and terror caused people
ran away from there. At that time two-three people fell down as they ran
away helter - skelter. Nearby hawkers went away form there. Nobody
helped him by seeing the knife in his hand. The petitioner forcibly took
7 crwp.362.24-J.odt
Rs.825/- from his pocket. The petitioner has given threat not to inform
police, otherwise, he will kill him.
9. Another witness 'B' has stated that the incident took place in
third week of December, 2023 when he was returning from his work, while
he was going from railway line towards Hanuan Mandir besides his home,
the petitioner was standing there with his associate. The witness was ill and
having cough, when the witness spit on the roadside, the petitioner asked
him why he spit by seeing him and he abused him. At that time, witness
told him that he is not well. The petitioner punched and kicked him for two-
three times. He whipped out a big knife and pointed it on the stomach of
witness and forcibly took out Rs.530/- from the pocket of the witness.
When he scream for help, the passers-by gathered there. When one of them
asked him not to beat a poor person, the petitioner loudly shouted at him
saying that not to become a smart and not to teach him. The petitioner
asked the people gathered there to go and do their own work otherwise he
will see each of them. The people ran away from there. At that time, he
gave threats not to lodge the complaint against him in Police Station. The
witnesses have given the statement only after giving assurance that their
names will not be disclosed and will not be called for giving evidence. The
crimes which are considered and the statements in which the witnesses
have narrated these facts would certainly show that it is the public order
that was disturbed. The petitioner has come with the case that the
8 crwp.362.24-J.odt
statements of witnesses are not properly verified. If we consider that
statements of those witnesses were taken and they were verified and the
verification has been categorically stated by the detaining authority that is
sufficient compliance.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of this Court in Sanjay Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur
City and Ors. [Criminal Writ Petition No.2335/2021] in support of his
argument that in the statements, the names, incidents, place of incident,
and date of incident were not mentioned. In said judgment, this Court has
held that it is expected that the detaining authority should disclose the date
and place of the incident so as to enable the detenue to make an effective
representation and reply to the statements of those witnesses. The
petitioner has made representation which was considered by the Advisory
Board and he appeared before the Advisory Board, opportunity was given to
him.
11. The petitioner has also relied on the judgment of this Court in
Mujib Vs. District Magistrate Aurangabad and Ors [Criminal Writ Petition
No.221/2023] in support of his argument that in absence of concrete
record to demonstrate that impugned order of detention in petitioner's case
was placed before Advisory Board within three weeks from date of
impugned detention. There is a fundamental breach of provision of Section
10 of MPDA Act which goes to root of legality of order.
9 crwp.362.24-J.odt
12. In the case of Shaikh Husain @ Shahrukh Shaikh Fatru Vs.
State of Maharashtra [2023 DGLS 1318] wherein it has observed that the
detaining authority must record its subjective satisfaction that the
statements of witnesses were genuine and that it had interacted with
Assistant Commissioner of Police to verify such a statement. Here said
satisfaction has been arrived at. In support of his argument he has also
relied on the judgment of Mohammad Arbaz @ Sanu S/o. Mohammad Israil
@ Manja Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Criminal Writ Petition
No.347/2023] decided on 17.01.2024 to which one of us was party (Mrs.
Vrushali V. Joshi, J) which is also on similar line as to what ought to have
been considered and what has not been considered, especially in respect of
subjective satisfaction. Similarly, in Shahjahan Kalimkhan Samshadkhan
Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4233], this
Court observed that there is no reference to the two in-camera statements
that they were either seen or the facts stated therein being ascertained by
the Commissioner of Police. However, we observe that those observations
made taking into consideration the facts of each case.
13. Though as per contention of the petitioner, first crime cannot
be considered for passing the detention order and relying only on the
second crime, the detention order cannot be passed. The learned A.P.P. has
relied on the judgment of Ramesh Balu Chavan Vs. The Commissioner of
Police & Ors. [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 3683, wherein it is held as under :
10 crwp.362.24-J.odt
"Thus, even if it is assumed that the ground relating to C.R. No.
276/2017 is not relevant for issuing the detention order under
the MPDA Act or is invalid for some reason, the same can be
severed in view of Section 5A of the MPDA Act. This would
mean that the detention order is based on the remaining four
grounds. These 4 grounds, in our opinion, are sufficient for the
detaining authority to reach his subjective satisfaction that it
was necessary to detain the detenu under the provisions of
MPDA Act as he is a 'bootlegger'."
14. Further he has relied on the judgment of Jafar Ahmed Alias
Jafar Fantoosh Mohamad Razzak Khan Vs. M. N. Singh and Others [2002
Cri. L. J. 1723] wherein it is observed that in view of provisions contained
in Section 5-A of MPDA Act on the mere failure of the grounds pertaining to
one crime the detention order would not be vitiated.
15. The reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in
Badal S/o. Manoj Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2024 ALL MR
(Cri) 102].
16. We do not have any doubt that the detenue could have been
categorized as a dangerous person under Section 2(b-a) of the MPDA Act
because the said provision provides that if a person either singly or as a
member or leader of gang, habitually commits offences punishable under
Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, he could be dangerous person
thereunder. In the instant case, the petitioner is brandished the dagger and
threatened the crowed, due to which crowd dispersed. The petitioner was
roaming with deadly weapon. He was under the preparation of committing
11 crwp.362.24-J.odt
dacoity. The in-camera statements show that he has created a terror in
public. Since both the statements show that he was habitually committing
the offences of extortion, he could have been detained as a dangerous
persons on the basis of the said in-camera statements.
17. As aforesaid subjective satisfactions has been arrived at on the
basis of two offences as well as two in-camera statements, we do not find
that this is to be 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. The detention order has been confirmed taking into
consideration the opinion of the Advisory Board as contemplated under law
and, therefore, we pass the following order.
18. The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed.
19. Rule stands discharged.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/08/2024 11:13:23
