Bombay High Court
Rehan Qureshi S/O Mohd. Vakil Qureshi vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Principal ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:10297-DB
1 crwp.117.24-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2024
Mr. Rehan Qureshi s/o. Mohd. Vakil Qureshi,
Aged 23 years, Occup.: Business,
R/o. Shivnagar, Wanjra Layout,
Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur - 440026. ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shavez H. Mansoori, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M. K. Pathan, A.P.P. for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.08.2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09.09.2024
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. The petitioner is detained under the order of detention dated
21.11.2023 issued by Commissioner of Police, Nagpur under Section 3(2) of
the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
2 crwp.117.24-J.odt
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand
Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential
Commodities Act, 1981 (the MPDA Act, 1981). The said order was
confirmed by the respondent No.1 on 11.01.2024. The petitioner is
detained as a dangerous person.
3. In the instant matter, the crimes relate to the Maharashtra
Animals Prevention Act, 1976 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 along with Indian Penal Code offences and provisions of the Arms Act,
in particular for the purpose of detention.
4. The offences which have been relied upon are as under :
(i) Crime No. 608/2023 under Sections 294, 506B, 143,
148, 149 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act
registered on 25.05.2023.
In this offence, on the complaint of one Ashfaq Ahmed Qureshi
s/o Shiekh Sultan Qureshi, crime was registered against the detenu and his
associates at Panchpaoli Police Station, Nagpur. The nature of the crime
involved threatening to kill the complainant, abusing in filthy language,
brandishing wooden sticks, pistol (Katta), as there was an allegation of
obstruction in running to get the permission of cutting the buffaloes from
Municipal Office, Nagpur, due to the complainant and his friend Isaque
Qureshi.
3 crwp.117.24-J.odt
5. (ii) Crime No. 411/2023 under Sections 429, 188 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5, 5A, 5C, 9A of the
Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 r/w Section 11(n)(l) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, registered on 14.09.2023.
In the above offence, Shri Yashwant Thote, Head Constable of
Kotwali Police Station, Nagpur, lodged the complaint against the petitioner
as reliable information was received from the informant that a cow was
slaughtered and 140 kg beef was carried in two black plastic bags in a green
coloured Chevrolet Yuva Company four-wheeler vehicle bearing registration
number MH-43-AB-2152 on the raid at Mahal, near Kila Gate, in front of
Regal Fashion Clothes shop. The material with the car was seized.
6. (iii) Crime No. 760/2023 under Sections 5, 5A, 5C, 9A of the
Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 r/w 11(n)(l) of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, registered on 14.10.2023.
During the patrolling in the jurisdiction of Police Station
Yashodhara Nagar, police constable Amit Thakur, on receipt of reliable
information that, on Plot No. 1495, Yogi Arvind Nagar, bovine animals were
tied up at the house of one Adnan Qureshi. It included six white coloured
cows, three brown coloured cows, four brown coloured calves, two white
coloured calves. Upon interrogation, he said that the said cows were tied for
slaughter. He further said some of the cows belong to the petitioner.
4 crwp.117.24-J.odt
7. In offence No. (i) as stated above, there was a confession from
the associate of the detenu, Mohd Irfan, about the committal of the crime
while in the offence No. (iii), the detenu confessed the same.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mansoori, relied upon
the grounds that the last crime against the petitioner was registered on
14.10.2023 and the detention order was passed on 21.11.2023. Therefore,
there is a delay of around 40 days which is unexplained. The two in-camera
statements relied by the Respondent No.2 to draw the subjective satisfaction
are vitiated as no document is provided by the respondent No.2 to support
the allegations made in the in-camera statements.
9. He further submitted that, there is no material on record to
show that the petitioner was involved in any criminal activity much less
prejudicial to public order in 40 days. There is no whisper in the detention
order as to when respondent No.2 reported the details and grounds of
detention of the petitioner to respondent No.1.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasized on his
contention that, the respondent No.2 did not peruse the bail orders which
are made part of the record and questioned if petitioner was indulged in
alleged criminal activities why did the respondent No.1 not approach the
competent Court for cancellation of bail.
5 crwp.117.24-J.odt
11. Learned A.P.P., Shri Pathan, heavily relied on the two in-
camera statements describing how the incidents would lead to the hamper
of public order if the on-going activities continue.
12. He submitted that, the petitioner is indulged into regular
activities of mischief by killing or maiming cattle, treating animals cruelly,
cow slaughtering and so on. The petitioner is alleged to steal cows from the
vicinity and other areas, slaughter them and sell the beef. He wanders with
his hooligan associates.
13. In the statement of witness "A", it is mentioned that, the detenu
stole the cow of the witness with the aid of his associates in a Bolero pick-
up. When the cow was tied in the shed and witness fast asleep, he heard a
loud mooing of the cow, when resisted regarding the mishap, the detenu
threatened witness to kill by brandishing a knife towards him abusing in
foul language. He acted in the same manner towards the gathered public
too, leaving them in fear.
14. In the statement of witness "B", in the midnight around 2.00-
3.00 A.M., the petitioner was attempting to steal the cow of the witness in
his vehicle, when the witness tried to forbid from the same to happen, the
petitioner, rushed to kill the witness with a big cow-slicing knife (Sattur).
He also threatened the gathered people by waving the weapon.
6 crwp.117.24-J.odt
15. Learned APP, on the aspect of delay in passing the detention
order submitted that, the time was utilized in the process of compilation of
documents, translation, fair typing and to comply with other requirements
of law. He further stated that, challenging the bail order in the High Court
and issuance of the detention order are two entirely independent
proceedings which do not affect each other and, therefore, the mere fact
that the prosecution has not moved for cancellation of bail would not
render the order of detention as illegal.
16. Learned A.P.P. submitted that, the petitioner has not at all
discussed about the particulars of crimes in the petition, which have been
taken into account, as how the activities of the petitioner would not lead
into passing of the detention order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
17. The grounds which are raised by the petitioner are whether the
offences which are considered by the detaining authority affects the public
order and two in-camera statements do not disclose any of the act and
incident disturbing the public order and another ground of delay in passing
the detention order.
18. According to the petitioner, there is delay in passing the order
of detention from the date of last offence. There is 40 days delay in passing
the order. In this case, three offences are considered by the detaining
authority. It is the contention of the petitioner that the offences registered
7 crwp.117.24-J.odt
under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 will not come under
the MPDA Act and said offences cannot be considered for passing the
detention order. On perusal of the offences it appears that the first offence
Crime No.608/2023 is registered on 25.05.2023 is for the offences
punishable under Sections 294, 506B, 143, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The second offence vide
Crime No.411/2023 is registered on 14.09.2023 for the offences punishable
under Sections 429, 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 5, 5A, 5C, 9A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976
and Section 11(n)(l) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and
the third offence is registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Animals Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995 read with the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Even if, the third offence is not considered
for passing the detention order. Two offences are there where the offences
under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code are registered, which comes
under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, these
offences can be considered for passing the detention order.
19. It is to be noted from the offences registered against the
petitioner that the petitioner was brandishing with the weapon. There was
quarrel between the two groups. The threats were given to the complainant
to kill him and they were brandishing wooden sticks and pistol i.e. the desi
katta. The quarrel took place as there was obstruction in running to get the
8 crwp.117.24-J.odt
permission of cutting the buffaloes from Municipal Office, Nagpur. In
another crime, 140 kg. beef was found in the vehicle. The said offences are
confessed by the petitioner and his associates. If the petitioner and his
associates are carrying the pistol and other weapons with them prima facie,
we can consider that it would raise public order and not only law and order
situation. There is ban on beef in Maharashtra. The petitioner and his
associates were found in possession of 140 kg. beef. The allegation are
made for the offences punishable under Section 429 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and the offences under the Maharashtra Animal
Preservation Act, 1976 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
20. If we consider the statements of witnesses, both witnesses "A"
and "B" have specifically stated the incidents. Witness "A" has stated that in
the first week of October 2023, at 7.00 p.m. when he was sleeping at 1.30
a.m. he heard the loud cow mooing and saw a Bolero pickup parked in front
of his house and two persons standing near the vehicle with a wooden stick.
When the witness went there he found that the petitioner was preparing to
steal away the cow of the witness. When he resisted, the petitioner drew a
large knife from his waist and threatened the witness by saying "rq pqipki jgs
ugh rks rsjs dks xk; ds leku dkV nqaxk- eS dbZ ckj tsy tkdj vk;k gqW- iqyhl esjk dqN fcxkM
ugh ldrh- When the witness shouted, the people from surrounding woke up
and came out. The petitioner took the cow of the witness in one hand and
the knife in right hand. He handed over the cow to his accomplice and
9 crwp.117.24-J.odt
threatened the crowed with a knife and again by saying "xk; dh rjg NkaV
Mkyqaxk" and ran away towards the gathered people. Therefore, people fled
into their houses and in fear, and shut their doors. No one came forward to
help the witness out of fear. He steal the cow and gave threats not to lodge
the report. As the witness was scared, he has not lodged the report.
21. Witness 'B' has also stated that in second week of October 2023
at about 2.00 to 3.00 a.m. in the night when he heard the sound of four-
wheeler in front of his house, he came out of the house and saw that the
petitioner was loading one of his cow into Bolero pick-up van. Therefore,
he shouted loudly. The family members came out and people from
surrounding area also gathered there. The witness was dragging the cow
towards him by forbidding his cow to enter the Bolero pick-up. At that time,
the petitioner brought a big cow-slicing knife from the cabin of Bolero
vehicle and rushed to kill the witness. The witness ran away and stood
away from him. Seeing the big Sattur knife in the hand of the petitioner, no
one came to help the witness. Then he abused the witness saying that
whether he is not knowing him and asked him to stay away from him,
otherwise he will cut his neck like cow. Thereafter, he waived Sattur
towards the gathered people and said that he will kill if anyone comes
forward. The people went to their houses and shut their doors. The
petitioner took the cow into Bolero pick-up van. Because the witness was
scared, he has not lodged the complaint.
10 crwp.117.24-J.odt
22. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. State of Telangana and Ors.
[(2021) 9 SCC 415], wherein it is held in paragraph 14 as under :
"14. There can be no doubt that for "public order" to be
disturbed, there must in turn be public disorder. Mere
contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal
breach of trust certainly affects "law and order" but before it
can be said to affect "public order", it must affect the
community or the public at large."
23. From the statements which are given by the witnesses clearly
show that the petitioner has created terror in said area and no one was
dared to lodge the complaint against the petitioner though the petitioner
has stole the cows of the witnesses for slaughtering. It appears that it is not
the only situation of law and order. The statements of witnesses shows that
the act of petitioner did not only affect the witnesses but also created a fear
in the mind of people staying in said area and who were witnessing the
incident. The detenue is indulging in theft of cattles. He stole the cattles
for slaughtering. The villagers are living in state of fear and terror on
account of activities of the detenue. This shows that the activities of the
detenue are not affecting just an individual but are affecting the public at
large. This definitely amounts to disturbance of public order.
24. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.702/2023 in support of argument that the complaint made
against the individual it can not fall within the ambit of public order. Here
11 crwp.117.24-J.odt
in this case, the act of the petitioner affects the public at large and not
individual. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Kuso Sah. Vs. State
of Bihar and Ors. [(1974) 1 SCC 185] , in which the reliance is placed on
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar [(1966) 1 SCR 709], wherein the
distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order' is discussed in detail.
25. The next ground is raised that there is delay in passing the
detention order. The last crime was registered on 14.10.2023 and the
detention order against the petitioner was passed on 21.11.2023. It is
submitted that there is a substantial delay of around 40 days in passing the
detention order and there is no explanation on the grounds of detention.
Taking into consideration the dates on record, in-camera statements, it is
verified by different authorities and the detaining authority, there is
absolutely no much gap which can be termed as delay. The time will not
start to run from the date on which the last offence that was registered. For
considering the delay we will have to consider the time till last offence, then
the in-camera statements, verification by the Superior Police Officers and
also by the detaining authority. The respondent No.2 has given the
explanation that the last in-camera statements were recorded on
01.11.2023. The Yashodhara Nagar Police Station, Nagpur initiated the
proposal for detention of the detenu on 03.11.2023 under the MPDA, 1981
(Amendment of 2015) and the same was submitted to the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Jaripatka Division. The Assistant Commissioner of
12 crwp.117.24-J.odt
Police, Sadar Division verified the in-camera statements of witness "A" and
"B" on 07.11.2023 and recommended the proposal to the Dy. Commissioner
of Police, Zone-V, Nagpur on 07.11.2023. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Zone-V, Nagpur verified the in-camera statement and after scrutinizing,
recommended it to the Addl. Commissioner of Police, North Region, Nagpur
on 08.11.2023. The Addl. Commissioner of Police, North Region, Nagpur
City on 09.11.2023 forwarded it to the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur i.e.
the Detaining Authority and on 10.11.2023, it was received in the Detention
Cell, Crime Branch, Nagpur. After scrutiny of documents, on 14.11.2023,
the Detention Cell, Crime Branch, Nagpur initiated the proposal to the
Detaining Authority i.e. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur. It is submitted
that the Detaining Authority prima facie found, that it was a fit case for
detention under MPDA and directed the office of the Detention Cell, Crime
Branch, Nagpur to prepare compilation, translation, fair typing and comply
with other requirements of law. The Detention Cell, Crime Branch, Nagpur
complied with these directions and on 14.11.2023 the draft of grounds of
detention were forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Detention), Crime Branch, Nagpur City who went through the draft of
grounds of detention and other relevant documents and gave his
endorsement on 15.11.2023 which were then forwarded to the Additional
Commissioner of Police (Crime), Nagpur City. The Additional
Commissioner of Police (Crime), Nagpur City went through the draft of
grounds of detention and other relevant documents and gave his
13 crwp.117.24-J.odt
endorsement on 16.11.2023 which were then forwarded to the Joint
Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur went through the draft of grounds of detention and other relevant
documents and gave her endorsement on 17.11.2023 before forwarding to
the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority carefully went through
the grounds of detention and other relevant documents and after being
subjectively satisfied, passed the detention order and on 21.11.2023, the
detenue was detained.
26. Considering the explanation, we found that there is no delay in
passing the detention order. There is no substance in the argument made
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is delay in passing the
detention order. As we have already opined that the activities of the
detneue are disturbing the public order and we also referred 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 and the Counsel representing the petitioner was also heard.
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 :
27. The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed.
14 crwp.117.24-J.odt
28. Rule stands discharged.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/09/2024 13:14:54
