Bombay High Court
Ravindra Pundalik Aadam vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 3 September, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-AS:35918-DB
1/8 4 WP.2880.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2880 OF 2024
Ravindra Pundalik Aadam .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police, Pune
City
2. The State of Maharashtra
3. The Superintendent, Chandrapur
Central Prison
.. Respondents
...
Ms Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms Anjali Raut, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP, for the State.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2024
Oral Judgment : (Per Bharati Dangre, J.):-
1. The detention order dated 13.02.2024 detaining the
detenu Amol Ravindra Aadam is challenged by his father
Ravindra Pundalik Aadam on various grounds set out in the
Petition. Pursuant to the order of detention, by the committal
order he was directed to be detained in Chandrapur Central
Prison, Chandrapur, and on the very same day, the grounds of
detention are communicated to him.
2. We had issued rule on 09.07.2024, pursuant to which,
R.V.Patil
2/8 4 WP.2880.2024.odt
the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government have
tendered its affdavi-in-reply.
3. The detention order passed by the Commissioner of
Police, Pune City has directed detention of the detenu Amol
Aadam, with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
Bootleggers, Durg Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video
Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-
marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Maha. Act No LV
of 1981) (Amendment -1996, 2009, 2015) (for short "the
MPDA Act 1981").
The grounds of detention has disclosed the foundation of
the detention order issued by the Detaining Authority, by
classifying him as a "Dangerous Person", who has indulged
himself into various criminal activities, and despite of the
preventing actions initiated against him, he did not deter and
rather his activities continued to show an ascending trend,
and the same being found to be prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order, the detention order was issued.
4. Ms Tripathi has assailed the detention order on various
grounds, but in specifc she has relied upon grounds (e) and (f)
in the Petition to demonstrate the delay in passing the
detention order, from the activity the Detaining Authority has
relied upon, refecting its casual approach. Grounds (e) and (f)
has been formulated in the following manner:
R.V.Patil
3/8 4 WP.2880.2024.odt
"(e) The petitioner says and submits that the detaining
authority has taken into consideration solitary C.R. No.
490/2023 dated 26.07.2023 along with in camera
statements of witness A and B to arrive at his subjective
satisfaction and pass the detention order. In the said
relied on C.R. i.e. 490/2023 dated 26.07.2023 the
detenu came to be arrested on the 19.01.2024 and was
granted bail by the Competent Court of law on the
01.02.2024. The detaining authority categorically states
at para 6 of the grounds of detention that "After
considering the seriousness of the offense (i.e. C.R. No.
490/2023 dated 26.07.2023) Police conducted a
confdential inquiry", it is not understood as to when the
said inquiry as the said in camera statements of both the
witnesses A and B are recorded on the 19.01.2024 and
25.01.2024 i.e. after a delay of about six months. The
said in camera statements are only taken to fll up the
gap and pass the order of detention on 13.02.2024. If
the activities of the detenu 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, the said delay
shows that the authorities have taken a very casual
approach. It is only after the detenu was released on
bail by the Competent Court of law, the authorities have
recorded two in camera statements and passed the
detention order. The order of detention is illegal and bad
in law, for delay in passing order, liable to be quashed
and set aside.
(f) The petitioner says and submits that the detaining
authority has taken into consideration solitary C.R.
490/2023 dated 26.07.2023 to pass detention order on
the 13.02.2024, a registered offence occurred about
seven months prior to pass detention order. Old and
stale material is considered for passing order. Live link
snaps. Old and stale material, which have no nexus with
the present preventive action ought not to be taken into
consideration for passing detention order. The order of
detention is illegal and bad in law, for consideration of
old and stale case, liable to be quashed and set aside."
5. We have heard Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the State
and perused the affdavit placed on record by the Detaining
Authority.
R.V.Patil
4/8 4 WP.2880.2024.odt
From perusal of the affdavit, we fnd the response to the
grounds (e) and (f) to be perfunctory as the Detaining
Authority has broadly responded by stating thus:
"It is submitted that the last offence registered
against detenue i.e. C.R. No. 490/2023 on 26.07.2023,
detenue was arrested on 19.01.2024 and released on
bail on 01.02.2024. The offence was then under
investigation.
During the course of investigation confdential
enquiries conducted by senior Inspector of Police,
Bharti Vidyapith Police Station, Pune, into the activities
of the detenue, it was revealed that number of people
becomes victims of the atrocities of the detenue and
therefore on giving assurance of their safety, two
witnesses came forward to record their statements
depicting atrocities suffered by them at the hands of the
detenue on 16.01.2024 and 29.01.2024 respectively.
Thereafter the Sponsoring Authority carefully
went through all the material they had collected. They
then prepared the necessary sets of documents by
getting them typed, xeroxed etc. After the necessary
sets of documents were ready, they submitted the same
along with the proposal for the detention of the detenue
on 27.01.2024."
We fnd that there is no explanation offered, as to why no
action was taken against the detenu on registration of C.R. No.
490 of 2023 on 26.07.2023 with Bharti Vidyapith Police
Station, Pune, which has been asserted to be the foundation of
detention order alongwith the two in-camera statements of
witnesses A and B.
The statement of in-camera witness A is recorded on
19.01.2024, whereas the statement of in-camera witness is
recorded on 25.01.2024, who have referred to the incident
which took place in frst week of January, 2024, and these
statements have been relied upon by the Detaining Authority
R.V.Patil
5/8 4 WP.2880.2024.odt
to establish his criminal inclination which justifed, he being
classifed as a "Dangerous Person". When we have perused the
grounds of detention, we have noticed that in clause No. 3 of
the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has given
the list of past offences and preventive actions taken against
him, and in clause No. 3.1, there is a reference to six CRs, four
registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth, one registered with
Kondhwa Police Station and one being registered with
Yerwada Police Station. The details of the preventive actions
are found to be highlighted in clause No.3.2, which has made
reference to three proceedings initiated against the detenu
under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act as well as
Section 110(e)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all by
Bharati Vidyapeeth.
6. In order to pass the detention order, by recording that
the preventive action had no deterrent effect upon the detenu,
as he continued to commit the serious offences, adversely
affecting the maintenance of public order in the jurisdiction of
Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune City, reliance is placed
upon C.R. No. 490 of 2023, which invoke Sections 363, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 4(25) of the Arms Act
and Sections 37(1)(3)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The particulars
of the offence are to be found in para 5.1, as the Detaining
Authority in para 5 had specifcally classifed the C.R. by
stating as below:
"Particulars of offences considered for passing
detention order are given below:- offences considered
for passing detention order"
R.V.Patil
6/8 4 WP.2880.2024.odt
Ms Tripathi has urged before us that in the said CR, he
was arrested on 19.01.2024 and in the interregnum that is
after registration of the CR and before his arrest, he was also
arraigned as an accused in two other CRs, one in Bharti
Vidyapeeth Police Station i.e. C.R. No. 657 of 2023 invoking
Sections 392, 120B r/w 34 of the IPC, which was registered on
12.10.2023. In addition, an offence was also registered in
Yerwada Police Station, vide C.R. No.696 of 2023 invoking the
very same offences registered on the very same day, and the
offence with Yerwada Police Station is shown to be under
investigation.
7. The Detaining Authority in referring to his past conduct
and to establish his habituality has relied upon six offences,
which include the above two offences which are registered on
12.10.2023, but while referring to the activities of the detenu,
in engaging himself in commission of crime continuously,
despite preventive action being taken against him in the year
2019, 2021 and 2023, according to the Detaining Authority, he
has indulged himself in an offence on 26.07.2023, which
resulted in registration of C.R. No. 490 of 2023. While
referring to his recent criminal activities, the Detaining
Authority has completely lost sight of registration of two CRs
i.e. C.R. No. 657 of 2023 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth
Police Station and C.R. No. 696 of 2023 registered with
Yerwada Police Station. The Detaining Authority has even
supplied the details of these two CRs to the detenu.
R.V.Patil
7/8 4 WP.2880.2024.odt
8. While appreciating the grounds raised on behalf of the
detenu, that is the ground of delay and snapping of live link,
we have noticed that after 26.07.2023, when C.R. No. 490 of
2023 is registered, the in-camera statements are recorded in
the month of January, 2024 to be followed by the issuance of
detention order on 13.02.2024. There is no explanation
offered as to what steps were taken to deal with the criminal
activities of the detenu after the C.R. No.490 of 2023 was
registered against him on 26.07.2023, as in the said C.R., he is
arrested on 19.01.2024. If according to the Detaining
Authority, his activities had the potential of causing
disturbance of public order and the activities were found to be
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then the
Detaining Authority could not have remained silent for a
period of approximately fve months.
In addition, the Detaining Authority has lost sight of the
fact that, two offences were registered against him and they
were referred by the Detaining Authority in para 3.1 for the
purpose of establishing his criminal history, whereas these
offences which have been considered alongwith the offence i.e.
C.R.No. 490 of 2023, as the activities of the detenu in
continuation to his previous activities from the year 2018 to
2020. The subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining
Authority therefore suffers from total non-application of mind,
as the two CRs registered on 12.10.2023 referring to the past
criminal history are in fact the continuation of the activities of
the detenu on registration of the last C.R. on 11.01.2023 and
the preventing action initiated against him.
R.V.Patil
8/8 4 WP.2880.2024.odt
Since the non-application of mind on part of the
Detaining Authority is evident, apart from the fact that the
live link between the last activity of the detenu which has been
relied by the Detaining Authority having taken place on
26.07.2023 and the detention order being passed on
13.02.2024, without any explanation being offered, falls foul of
the exercise of power by the Detaining Authority in passing
the detention order.
Hence, Rule is made absolute. The detention order dated
13.02.2024 is set aside. The detenu Amol Ravindra Aadam is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
R.V.Patil
