Bombay High Court
Govardhan Sham Rajput vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 28 August, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-AS:35794-DB
1/5 3 WP.2596.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2596 OF 2024
Govardhan Sham Rajput
Age: 32 years, R/o: Near Amey
Company, Sanawane Vasti,
Chikhali, Pune ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Pimpri Chinchawad
2. The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Secretary Home
Department (Spl.), Mantralaya,
Mumbai
3. The Superintendent, Yerwada
Central Prison, Pune ... Respondents
...
Mr. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms Anjali Raut, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP, for the Respondent - State.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 28th AUGUST, 2024
Oral Judgment : (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.):-
1. The matter is taken up for fnal disposal with the consent
of parties.
2. The Petitioner is assailing the Order of Detention issued
by Respondent No. 1- the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri
Chinchawad, Pune, on 11.05.2024.
R.V.Patil
2/5 3 WP.2596.2024.odt
3. The committal order and grounds of detention were also
served on 11.05.2024. The petitioner has made a
representation to the State Government on 07.06.2024 for
consideration and revocation of the Order of Detention. The
Order of Detention is challenged by the petitioner on various
grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed
into service the ground of snapping of live link in ground (d)
which is thus:
"(d) The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining
authority has taken into consideration solitary offence
vide C.R. No. 766/2023 dated 29.11.2023, u/sec 65(e),
for arriving at his subjective satisfaction and pass the
detention order. It is to be noted that in C.R. No.
766/2023 dated 29.11.2023 the Petitioner came to be
arrested on 30.11.2023 and was released on the same
day. The detaining authority categorically states at para
6 of the grounds of detention that "After considering the
seriousness of the offence described above, the Senior
Police Inspector of Chikhali Police Station, Pimpri
Chinchwad conducted a confdential inquiry....", it is not
understood as to when the said inquiry was conducted,
as after the detenu's release on bail on 30.11.2023, in
camera statements of both the witnesses A and B are
recorded belatedly on 14.03.2024 and 16.03.2024 i.e.
after a delay of more than two months. The said in
camera statements are only taken to fll up the gap and
pass the order of detention on 11.05.2024. If the
activities of the Petitioner were so dangerous and
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order then the
authorities ought to have taken prompt and immediate
steps to initiate proceedings against him. There is delay
in passing the order of detention. Live link snaps. After
the registration of C.R. No.766/2023 the authorities
have waited for more than two months for recording of
in camera statements, therefore there is a delay in
recording in camera statements, and after recording of
the in camera statements, the order of detention is
passed after another two months. This shows the casual
and cavalier approach of the authorities passing the
detention order. Order of detention is illegal and bad in
law for delay in passing order, liable to be quashed set
aside."
R.V.Patil
3/5 3 WP.2596.2024.odt
4. The grounds of detention have been communicated to the
petitioner by the Detaining Authority in C.R. No. 766/2023, for
offence punishable under Section 65 of the Prohibition Act,
registered on 30.11.2023.
It appears from the grounds of detention that, on
29.11.2023 at about 19:50 hrs. the complainant raided the tin
shed behind Pathare Hotel, Chikhali, Pune and the petitioner
was found in possession of one black plastic can in which
approximately 30 liters of hatbhatti liquor worth Rs.2,000/-
and cash Rs.230/- received from sale of illicit liquor was
recovered. Accordingly, the complaint was registered against
the petitioner with Chikhali Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad
on 30.11.2023. Thereafter, confdential statement of witness
'A' has been recorded on 14.03.2024 for the incident that
occurred on 19.02.2024. The confdential statement of
witness 'B' was recorded on 16.03.2024 for the incident that
occurred on 10.03.2024.
5. On the basis of one C.R. and two in-camera statements,
the Detaining Authority has recorded his subjective
satisfaction that, the petitioner is acting in a manner
dangerous to the health and life of people and prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order, therefore, being satisfed that the
activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order, has issued the Order of Detention, which is
impugned in the present Writ Petition. According to the
petitioner, the offence has been registered on 30.11.2023 and
the Order of Detention has been issued on 11.05.2024, due to
which the live link has snapped.
R.V.Patil
4/5 3 WP.2596.2024.odt
6. The learned APP has relied on the affdavit fled by the
Detaining Authority, when we have called upon the learned
APP to address us on specifc ground of snapping of live link.
The learned APP has relied on the explanation given by the
Detaining Authority in paragraph 11 of the affdavit in reply to
paragraph 5(d) of the grounds in the Writ Petition, wherein
the Detaining Authority has given details about the date-wise
steps taken before issuing the Order of Detention, however, he
has not offered any explanation to the gap in the last offence
registered against the petitioner and the order of detention
issued against him. The explanation given by the Detaining
Authority does not give any satisfactory explanation for the
huge gap between the two dates that is the date of registering
offence on 30.11.2023 and Order of Detention issued on
11.05.2024, therefore, the Order of Detention becomes
unsustainable due to snapping of live link and the same is
required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned APP in his submissions while trying to justify
the delay has stated that the C.A. report of the liquor which
was seized, has been received by the Detaining Authority on
26.12.2022, hence, thereafter the steps have been taken for
the detention of the petitioner. We are not satisfed by the said
explanation since already the offence has been registered
under Section 65 (e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act,
therefore, there was no propriety in waiting for the said report
for taking further steps.
8. We have considered the arguments of the respective
R.V.Patil
5/5 3 WP.2596.2024.odt
parties and we have perused the contents of the memo of Writ
Petition as well as the reply affdavit fled by the Detaining
Authority. The record discloses that there is a huge gap of
more than fve months between the date of registration of
offence and the date of issuance of the Order of Detention.
Though the delay by itself will not make the Order of Detention
unsustainable, but when such delay is not explained, the Order
of Detention becomes unsustainable. Even otherwise, due to
unexplained delay, the live link has snapped. In such situation
the Order of Detention warrants interference by this Court. In
view of the above, the Order of Detention being erroneous and
unsustainable is quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and Rule is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
"(b) The order of Detention bearing No.
PCB/DET/134/2024, Pimpri Chinchwad, dated
11.05.2024 issued under Section 3 of M.P.D.A. Act 1981
by the Respondent No. 1 be quashed and set aside and
on quashing the same petitioner be ordered for release
forthwith."
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
R.V.Patil
