Bombay High Court
Ganesh Bhujang More vs The District Collector, Hingoli on 8 May, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:9902-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 708 OF 2024
GANESH BHUJANG MORE
VERSUS
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HINGOLI AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh P. Kale
APP for Respondents : Mr. S.P. Joshi
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Reserved on : 30 APRIL 2024
Pronounced on : 08 MAY 2024
JUDGMENT (Per : Shailesh P. Brahme, J.):
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both
the sides finally.
2. Petitioner assails order of detention dated 04.08.2023
passed by respondent no. 2 - District Collector, Hingoli, under
Section 3 (1) 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MPDA
Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience). Petitioner has been held
to be dangerous person by considering an offence, in-camera
statements and an order of externment dated 15.04.2023.
3. Learned counsel Mr. M.P. Kale for the petitioner
submits that subjective satisfaction suffers from non consideration
of reasons assigned for enlarging petitioner on bail. He would
further submit that petitioner was not given opportunity to make
representation and his proposal was directly placed before
advisory board. It is further submitted that the offence pitted
against him was not committed during the period of externment. It
is submitted that in-camera statements are not reliable. Lastly, he
would submit that there is delay in processing the proposal and
passing of the impugned order.
4. Learned APP Mr. S.P. Joshi supports impugned order on
the basis of affidavit-in-reply filed by the Detaining Authority. He
would submit that petitioner operates a gang and he is a weapon
wielding desperado. He is undeterred by the previous order of
externment and ordinary penal laws. Impugned order cannot be
faulted by implication of Section 5 A of the Act. Lastly, he submits
that subjective satisfaction is reasonable and plausible.
5. We have heard both the counsels and gone through the
relevant papers. Only offence pitted against petitioner is Crime No.
638 of 2023 under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code,
registered on 23.07.2023. It was allegedly committed by him at
Hingoli, District Hingoli. He had suffered order of externment
passed on 15.04.2023, externing him from Nanded district for six
months. Strictly speaking, there is no breach of order of
externment but fact remains that he was bold enough to commit
offence on 23.07.2023, albeit outside the prohibited area.
6. In previous offences petitioner was released on bail but
those offences were not considered by the Detaining Authority. The
Detaining Authority need not have to consider those reasons. Only
last offence is pitted against him. Hence, present scrutiny is
confined to the last offence. Record reveals that his application for
bail in the last offence was rejected by order dated 28.07.2023 by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Hingoli. The Detaining
Authority has referred to this fact.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment
of Sayed Bilal Sayed Munwar Versus The State of Maharashtra and
others, passed by this High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 119
of 2024. However, in that matter detinue was enlarged on bail and
reasons thereof, were not considered by the Detaining Authority.
That judgment cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
Similarly, further judgment of Dipak Alias Fantya Ashokrao
Kawanpure Versus State of Maharashtra, AIR Online 2022 Bom 18,
is also not applicable.
8. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to make
representation, the submission is not substantiated. Nothing is
pointed out as to how the petitioner is deprived of the right to
make representation. He was served with the grounds of
detention and the relevant papers. Respondent no. 1 has
specifically denied grounds raised by the petitioner in this regard,
in paragraph no. 11 of the reply. There is no material to infer that
he was prevented from making representation.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to in-
camera statements of the witnesses to demonstrate that those are
unreliable. In-camera statements have a corroborative value.
Those can be looked into to show conduct of the detenue. It is
useful to refer to judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Smt. Phulwari Jagadambaprasad Pathak Versus R.H. Mendonca
and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2527. In paragraph no. 16,
purport of in-camera statement is explained. We do not find in
merit in the submission of the petitioner.
10. We have examined submission of delay caused in
passing impugned order. For that purpose, we have gone through
affidavit-in-reply and especially paragraph no. 13. In-camera
statements were recorded on 29.07.2023. Those were verified.
Proposal was submitted on 31.07.2023. Impugned order was
passed on 04.08.2023. We are of the considered view that the
proposal has been processed with due promptitude. The
submission of the petitioner does not hold any water.
11. Learned APP has referred to FIR of the last offence in
which the petitioner was found to have been preparing to commit
robbery. Material was seized from him. Both in-camera witnesses
averred that petitioner operates gang or commits offences by
forming gang. This indicates activities are detrimental to the public
order. Solitary instance can be basis of detention. In our
considered view, Detaining Authority has rightly appreciated
material placed before him.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Rekha Versus State of
Tamil Nadu and another, 2011 AIR SCW 2262, He relies on
paragraph nos. 12, 13, 34, 37, 40 and 43. The judgment is
distinguishable and is not made applicable to the present case.
13. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any
substance in the submissions of the petitioner. Criminal Writ
Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
Thakur-Chauhan/-
