Bombay High Court
Prem Ramchandra Rathod vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 3 January, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Gauri Godse
2024:BHC-AS:149-DB
VARSHA VIJAY
Digitally signed by VARSHA
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date: 2024.01.03 18:45:14
+0530
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION(STAMP) NO. 20846 OF 2023
Prem Ramchandra Rathod
R/o. Pratap Nagar Tanda,
North Solapur, District Solapur
(Presently detained at Yerwada Central
Prison, Pune) ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Commissioner of Police, Solapur.
2. The State of Maharashtra
(Through Addl. Chief Secretary to
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai)
3. The Superintendent of Yerwada Central
Prison, Pune. ... Respondents
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi for the petitioner
Mrs. P. P. Shinde APP for the State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR ORDERS: 19th DECEMBER 2023
PRONOUNCED ON: 3rd JANUARY 2024
1/21
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 :::
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
JUDGMENT (PER: GAURI GODSE, J.) :
-
1. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 25 th
September 2023, passed by respondent no. 1- the Commissioner
of Police, Solapur, in the exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons
engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981
('MPDA Act') for detaining the petitioner.
2. The aforesaid detention order is passed by relying upon
three complaints registered against the petitioner vide CR No.
254 of 2023, dated 11th May 2023, CR No. 278 of 2023, dated
19th May 2023 and CR No. 286 of 2023, dated 22 nd May 2023.
All three CRs are registered for the offences punishable under
sections 392 and 34 of the IPC. In CR No. 254 of 2023, the
complainant has alleged that the complainant's mother, aged 80
years, was returning along with her husband in an auto rickshaw
and after they got out from the auto-rickshaw, three unknown
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
persons came on a motorcycle and snatched the mangalsutra of
the complainant's mother. The said CR was registered against
unknown persons. The detaining authority has recorded that
while investigating CR No. 286 of 2023, the petitioner and his
associate were arrested on 23rd May 2023, and in that CR, 3
mangalsutras were seized from the petitioner. It is further
recorded that one Honda Activa motorcycle used to commit the
offences was also seized from the possession of the petitioner's
associates. During the investigation of the said CR No. 286 of
2023, it was revealed that the petitioner and his associates
committed 3 offences of robbery in the month of May 2023,
which were registered vide CR No. 254 of 2023, CR No. 278 of
2023 and CR No. 286 of 2023. The petitioner was arrested
through a production warrant in connection with the said CR
No. 254 of 2023.
3. Even in CR No. 278 of 2023 and Cr No. 286 of 2023, the
allegation against the petitioner is of chain snatching. In
connection with CR No. 278 of 2023, the petitioner was
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
arrested on 8th June 2023 through a production warrant, and he
was granted bail on 9th June 2023. In connection with CR No.
286 of 2023, the petitioner was produced on 24 th May 2023
before the Magistrate and was granted police custody. The
petitioner was granted bail on 9th June 2023.
4. The detaining authority has also relied upon two in-camera
statements verified on 23rd August 2023 and 25th August 2023 in
connection with two separate incidents that occurred in the 2 nd
week of August 2023. Witness 'A' of the in-camera statement has
alleged that the petitioner and his 8 to 10 associates intercepted
the witness and demanded Hafta. It is further alleged that the
petitioner abused the passengers travelling in an auto-rickshaw of
the witness, and he assaulted the witness with kicks and hockey
sticks. The petitioner and his associates threatened the passersby
who tried to help the witness. It is also alleged that the
petitioner's associates started pelting stones at the people who
gathered there, and hence, everyone started running helter-
skelter and some of them were also injured. Witness 'A' has
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
alleged that the petitioner's associate also assaulted the witness,
and the petitioner extorted money from the witness.
5. Similar allegations are made by witness 'B' of in-camera
statement. Witness 'B' also alleged that the petitioner threatened
and assaulted him with a deadly weapon and extorted money
from him. Even witness 'B' has alleged that passersby who tried
to intervene were threatened and assaulted by pelting stones.
Thus, the people who had gathered started running helter-skelter
and some of them were also injured.
6. Thus, by relying upon the aforesaid three CRs and two in-
camera statements, the detaining authority has recorded
subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a dangerous person
and is required to be detained to prevent him from indulging in
any prejudicial activities in future.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various
grounds to challenge the detention order, however, pressed into
service the grounds raised in clauses (d), (e), (f) and (g) of
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
paragraph 5 of the petition, which reads as under:
"d. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining
authority vehemently states in para 2 of the grounds
of detention that "your criminal antecedents show
that, you are a dangerous person and a weapon
wielding desperado.... you have unleashed a reign of
terror and thereby become persistent danger to the
lives and properties of people residing and carrying
out their daily routine in the above areas " it is to be
noted that the criminal antecedents described in para
2 and 3 of the grounds of detention is absolutely
vague and baseless for want of any material, as the
antecedents shown in a table at para 4, shows the
criminal history shows 2 crimes both are registered at
Vijapur Naka Police Station, the first offence is C.R.
U/Sec. 142 of Maha Police Act, where the petitioner
was convicted and was required to pay a fine of Rs.
400/- and the second offence, C.R. No 490/2019
U/Sec. 341, 504, 506 IPC which is Court Pending.
Hence the antecedents as shown in the table of cases
at para 4 is not in consonances with the allegations as
averred in para 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention.
The allegations as mentioned in para 2 and 3 are non-
existent and extraneous. This shows total non-
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
application of mind of the detaining authority. It is in
fact no such antecedents are recorded as against the
petitioner in the past. The order of detention is illegal
and bad in law for consideration of vague and
extraneous material, liable to be quashed and set
aside.
e. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining
authority has taken into consideration three criminal
cases registered against the petitioner, I.e., C.R. No.
254/2023 dated 11.05.2023 (the petitioner was
granted bail by the Competent Court of law on P.R.
and solvent surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- (1 lakh) on
04.08.2023), C.R. No. 278/2023 dated 19.05.2023
(the petitioner was granted bail by the Competent
Court of law on surety of Rs. 15000/- on 09.06.2023)
and C.R. No. 286/2023 dated 22.05.2023 (the
petitioner was granted bail by the Competent Court of
law on surety of Rs. 15000/- on 09.06.2023) all the
three crimes are registered u/Sec. 392, 34 IPC. It is
pertinent to note that all the three C.R.s are registered
in the name of unknown persons and are offenses of
chain snatching. The petitioner says and submits that
after he was released on bail in all the three C. R.s, in
camera statements are recorded on the 28th August
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
and 24th August 2023 for incidents occurred in the
2nd week of August. On a plain reading of the
incidents as narrated in the in-camera statements when
compared with the allegations stated in the registered
crimes, no man of prudence can come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is one and the same
person committing such crimes, especially on the
pretext of bail being granted on P.R. and solvent surety
of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 04.08.2023. The said in camera
statements are only recorded to fill up the gap and
pass the detention order after the petitioner was
granted bail on 04.08.2023, and within a span of one
month the order of detention came to be passed on
25.09.2023. Such vague and concocted statements
should not be considered for passing detention order.
The order of detention is illegal and bad in law liable
to be quashed and set aside.
f. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining
authority has taken into consideration three criminal
cases registered against the petitioner, I.e., C.R. No.
254/2023 dated 11.05.2023, C.R. No. 278/2023
dated 19.05.2023 and C.R. No. 286/2023 dated
22.05.2023 all the three crimes are registered u/Sec.
392, 34 IPC. It is pertinent to note that all the three
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
C.R.s are registered in the name of unknown persons
and are offenses of chain snatching. The said three
offenses as alleged by the complainants in all the three
C.R.s as narrated show that the alleged incidents have
taken place in isolated areas, wherein no members of
public were present. The incidents are said to be taken
place in isolation and against an individual. Law is well
settle that a valid detention order against a person
designating him as a dangerous person as defined in
Sec.2 (iy) "in case of a dangerous person, when he is
engaged, or is making preparation for engaging, in any
of his activities as a dangerous person, which affect
adversely or are likely to affect adversely, the
maintenance of public order", that due to the activities
of the petitioner, even tempo of the life of the society
is disturbed in such a way that normal laws of land are
insufficient to curb his prejudicial activities. In all the
three criminal cases relied upon by the detaining
authority to pass detention order, the said alleged
activity, even though an offence falling under Chapter
XVI and XVIl of IPC, can be dealt with by normal
laws of land affecting law and order situation, for
which the ordinary law of land is well equipped to
take care. Therefore, such cases cannot be taken into
consideration to pass a detention order designating the
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
petitioner as a dangerous person. This also shows total
non-application of mind of the authorities passing
order. The subjective satisfaction vitiates. The order of
detention is illegal and bad in law liable to be quashed
and set aside.
g. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining
authority has taken into consideration in camera
statements of witness A and B, recorded in camera to
arrive at his subjective satisfaction and pass the
detention order. In the statement of witness B, the
witness narrates the incident stating in para 2 that the
petitioner came alongwith 2 to 3 unknown persons to
the witness's shop and purchased goods from there.
And immediately in the next line the witness says that
the petitioner started demanding money. If a person
who wants to demand money or is in the habit of
extorting money from person, how can that person
purchase goods? The in-camera statement is false and
concocted one. Such statements cannot be considered
for passing detention order. The order of detention is
illegal and bad in law liable to be quashed and set
aside."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
paragraph no. 2 of the detention order, the criminal antecedents
of the petitioner are referred to, which are absolutely vague and
baseless and that the antecedents are shown in the table in
paragraph 4 of the detention order showing the criminal history
of the petitioner.
9. She further submitted that the allegations mentioned in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the detention order are non-existent and
extraneous. She submits that there is total non-application of
mind of detaining authority as no such antecedents have been
recorded against the petitioner in the past. She, therefore,
submitted that the detention order is illegal and bad in law
considering the vague extraneous material against the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
the detaining authority has considered the three CRs referred to
in paragraph 5. However, in connection with CR No. 254 of
2023, dated 11th May 2023, the petitioner was granted bail on
4th August 2023; in connection with CR No. 278 of 2023, dated
19th May 2023, the petitioner was granted bail on 9 th June 2023
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
and in connection with CR No. 286 of 2023, dated 22 nd May
2023, the petitioner was granted bail on 9 th June 2023. She thus
submitted that in all the three CRs registered for the alleged
offences punishable under sections 392 and 34 of the IPC, the
petitioner is granted bail. She submitted that all three CRs were
registered against the unknown persons for an offence of chain
snatching. She, therefore, submitted that after the petitioner was
released on bail in all three CRs, the in-camera statements were
recorded on 28th August 2023 and 24th August 2023 for the
incidents that occurred in the 2nd week of August. She submitted
that the gist of the in-camera statements if compared to the
aforesaid CRs, it is not believable that the petitioner is one and
the same person who has committed the crime as stated in the
said CRs and the said in-camera statements. She submitted that
the in-camera statements are recorded only to fill up the gap for
passing detention order. She, thus, submitted that the detention
order is based on vague concocted in-camera statements that are
illegal and bad in law.
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that three CRs taken into consideration by the detaining
authority are registered against the unknown persons. Alleged
incidents took place in isolated areas against individuals. She
submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that for
designating a person as a 'dangerous person' as defined in section
2(iv) of the MPDA Act, the allegation against the detenu should
amount to a disturbance of the tempo of life of a society where
ordinary laws of the land are insufficient to curb the prejudicial
activities. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations against
the petitioner in all three CRs can be taken care of under the
ordinary law of the land, and there is no requirement to invoke
preventive law against the petitioner.
12. She submitted that in the in-camera statement of witness
'A', the allegations against the petitioner is that he, along with an
unknown person, went to the shop of the witness and purchased
goods from there. She submitted that in the other in-camera
statements, witness 'B' alleged that the petitioner was demanding
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
money. She submitted that in the event a person is in the habit of
extorting money, the said person shall not go to the shop to
purchase goods. She, thus, submitted that if the allegations in
both in-camera statements are compared, it would show that the
statements are false and fabricated. She, thus, submitted that the
detention order based on the aforesaid two CRs, and the two in-
camera statements are illegal and without any cogent material.
She thus submitted that the detention order is liable to be
quashed and set aside, being illegal, and the petitioner be
released forthwith.
13. Learned APP supported the detention order by relying
upon the respective affidavits filed by the detaining authority, jail
authority and the State Government. Learned APP submitted that
perusal of the allegations in the in-camera statements would
show that the petitioner, along with his associates, threatened
and assaulted the witnesses and extorted money from them. She
submitted that in the gist of the in-camera statements of both the
witnesses, the petitioner and his associates created terror
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
amongst the people by using deadly weapons. She relied upon
the affidavit of the detaining authority and submitted that the
contents in paragraphs nos. 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention
are merely presumptive and introduction and are referred to only
to show the proclivity of the petitioner and that the contents of
the said paragraphs are not the grounds of detention. She
submitted that the past criminal history of the petitioner and
preventive action shown in paragraphs 4 and 4.1 of the grounds
of detention was only referred to show the tendency and
inclination of the petitioner. She submitted that the grounds of
detention are based on the contents of paragraph 5 as specifically
stated in the detention order. She, thus, submitted that there is
no substance in the ground raised on behalf of the petitioner that
the detention order is based on non-existent and extraneous
material.
14. With reference to the ground of challenge raised in clause
(e) of the petition is concerned, learned APP submitted that the
petitioner has committed three offences of robbery and two
offences of extortion of money as specifically stated in paragraph
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
no.5 of the detention order. She submitted that the punishment
for the offence committed by the petitioner in the three relied
upon CRs is imprisonment for life or 14 years of rigorous
imprisonment and a fine. She thus, submitted that the offences
are grievous in nature. So far as in-camera statements are
concerned, the learned APP submitted that the activities of the
petitioner have adversely affected the public in general and that
each incident is linked in the chain of anti-social activities of the
petitioner showing his tendency towards criminal activities. She
submitted that the activities of the petitioner create a feeling of
insecurity, fear and danger in the minds of the people, which is
evident from the allegations made by both the witnesses of the
in-camera statements. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that it
cannot be said that in-camera statements are recorded to fill up
the gap for passing detention order.
15. With reference to grounds of paragraph nos. (f) and (g) of
the petition is concerned, learned APP submitted that the
incident of in-camera statement of witness 'A' has occurred in the
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
afternoon of 2nd week of August 2023 and the incident of witness
'B' has occurred in the evening of 2 nd week of August 2023. She
submitted that in both incidents, the petitioner and his associates
had extorted money from the public by creating terror and
threatening them by pelting stones and assaulting and injuring
the public. She submitted that in both the incidents of in-camera
statements, the petitioner and his associates were carrying
weapons and had extorted money from the witnesses. Learned
APP, thus, submitted that the continued criminal activities of the
petitioner show that he is rightly termed as a 'dangerous person'
within the meaning of section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act. She, thus,
submitted that invocation of the ordinary law of the land is not
sufficient to curb the illegal activities of the petitioner, and thus,
it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from
indulging in prejudicial activities. She submitted that subjective
satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is based on
cogent material in the form of relied-upon CRs and two in-
camera statements. She also submitted that the in-camera
statements are verified by the officer in the rank of ACP and that
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the in-camera
statements. Learned APP, thus, submitted that there is no
substance in the grounds of challenge raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
16. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of
both parties. A perusal of the detention order indicates that the
petitioner and his associates have indulged in prejudicial activities
by committing the offence of robbery in isolated areas and
creating terror among the public. The allegations against the
petitioner in CR No. 254 of 2023 indicate that the petitioner
and his associates were involved in the chain snatching of 80
years old lady who was a victim of the petitioner's activity. The
allegations in the other two CRs being CR No. 278 of 2023 and
CR No. 286 of 2023 also pertain to the similar offence alleged
against the petitioner and his associates. The activities of the
petitioner and his associates, as alleged in the three CRs pertain
to the chain snatching in an isolated public place. In all three
CRs, alleged offence has occurred in isolated public areas either
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
in the evening or late in the night. Thus, such activities amount
to creating fear in the minds of the public at large. So far as in-
camera statements are concerned, the petitioner is alleged to
have indulged in activities of extortion of money in a public
place. In the in-camera statement of witness 'B', though it is
stated that the petitioner and his associates entered the shop of
the witness and purchased goods from there, it is also stated that
the petitioner and his associates entered the shop with iron pipe
and lathi and that they demanded money from the witness by
threatening the witness. In both the incidents of in-camera
statements, it is stated that the petitioner and his associates were
involved in assaulting and threatening people by using deadly
weapons like gupti, iron pipe, lathi and hockey sticks. It is also
stated that the petitioner and his associates pelted stones at
people who had gathered, which not only created fear among the
people but also injured some of them. The in-camera statements
are verified by the officer of the rank of ACP. The date of
recording in-camera statements and the particulars of the
incidents are narrated in the gist of the in-camera statement
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
reproduced in the detention order. We do not find any reason for
disbelieving the in-camera statements or finding suspicion about
the in-camera statements.
17. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner with
respect to the contents of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the detention
order being based on vague and baseless material and has no
merit. Perusal of the detention order indicates that the grounds
of detention are based on the material relied upon in paragraph 5
of the detention order. Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3 pertain to the
particulars of the three CRs relied upon by the detaining
authority. Paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 pertain to the gist of the in-
camera statements, which are also relied upon by the detaining
authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction. Thus, it cannot be
said that the grounds for detention are based on any non-existent
or extraneous material. The allegations against the petitioner in
the three CRs, as well as in-camera statements, pertain to
disturbance of public order, and the same are not restricted to
any individual allegations. Thus, once the activity of the
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
petitioner pertains to the disturbance of public order and peace,
ordinary law cannot be sufficient to curb his illegal activities.
Hence, considering the prejudicial activities of the petitioner as
narrated in the grounds of detention shows that it was necessary
to invoke the preventive law against the petitioner. We do not
find any fault in the subjective satisfaction recorded by the
detaining authority based on the three CRs and two in-camera
statements. There is no substance in the grounds of challenge
raised on behalf of the petitioner.
18. We do not find any merit in the petition; hence, for the
reasons recorded above, the petition is dismissed.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
(GAURI GODSE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
