Bombay High Court

Ramesh Gopal Dikyav vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, ... on 2 April, 2025

Author: Nitin W. Sambre

Bench: Nitin W. Sambre

2025:BHC-NAG:3475-DB


                                                            1                                15.crwp.189.25-JF.odt

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 189 OF 2025

                    Ramesh s/o. Gopal Dikyav,
                    Aged about 50 years,
                    Occupation : Labourer,
                    R/o. House No.40, Postman Colony,
                    Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.
                    (Father of detenue) (ON RA)                                      ... PETITIONER
                               ...VERSUS...
                1. State of Maharashtra
                    Through Secretary, Preventive Detention,
                    Home Department (SPL),
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. (ON RA)

                2. Commissioner of Police,
                    Amravati City, Amravati,
                    Tq. and Dist. Amravati. (ON RA)                                  ... RESPONDENTS
               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
               Mr. N. S. Rao, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.
               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
               JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 24.03.2025
               JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2025.

               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. This is a writ petition filed by the father of the detenu under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India which impugns the order bearing

No.CB/DET/MPDA/AMT/07/2024 dated 14.09.2024 passed by the

respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Police, Amravati City in exercise of

powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra 2 15.crwp.189.25-JF.odt

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-

Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and

Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981,

(for short 'the Act'), ordering the detention and its subsequent approval

by respondent No.1 under Section 3(3) of the Act on 24.09.2024.

3. The primary grounds on which the detention is based are

following:

(A) The registration of Crime Nos.318/2024, 436/2024 and 497/2024

dated 1.06.2024, 21.07.2024 and 24.08.2024 were respectively

considered for ordering detention and the respondent No.2 was aware

about the detenu being already released on bail in the said crimes.

(B) That, the vital documents which form a part of the grounds of

detention are illegible viz. Page Nos. 65-70. It is practically impossible to

read and understand those documents.

(C) That the in-camera statements are false and it has been fabricated

viz. documents prepared afterwards and they are neither true and

genuine nor have been lawfully and factually verified by the authority as

required under the law.

4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

that there was a failure to make a representation before the Advisory

Board as no knowledge or any assistance was provided to the detenu.

3 15.crwp.189.25-JF.odt

It is further submitted that the detaining authority has

considered the past history recorded in paragraph 3 - 9 of the grounds of

detention while reaching the conclusion that the detenu is a dangerous

person, however no material as regards to paragraph 3 - 9 was supplied

to the detenu and, therefore, due to non-supply of the copies of the said

material, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5)

of the Constitution of India is hampered.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that, the

two in-camera statements of the witnesses relied upon by the detaining

authority have not been lawfully verified by the Assistant Commissioner

of Police, furthermore, the detaining authority has mechanically reached

at the subjective satisfaction without application of mind.

6. The Respondents have relied upon the facts by filing an

affidavit-in-reply.

It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the in-camera

statements of two witnesses, "A" and "B" were recorded on 20.08.2024

and 22.08.2024 respectively. The petitioner committed three crimes

within a span of two and half months, was arrested and subsequently

released on bail. If a detenu is enlarged on bail that does not mean that

the detaining authority cannot consider the crimes registered against the

detenu. The detenu has continued with his illegal activities despite being 4 15.crwp.189.25-JF.odt

released on bail which is sufficient for the detaining authority to pass the

detention order.

7. Furthermore, it is submitted by the Learned A.P.P. that the

detaining authority has supplied all the relevant documents including the

detention order in English and Marathi language. The detaining authority

has placed on record a school certificate issued by Sant Kavarram

Vidyalaya, Amravati depicting that the detenu appeared in 10th standard

examination and his subjects were English, Hindi and Marathi evidencing

that the detenu is well aware of all the three languages.

8. The proposed detenu has personally committed many

serious offences and was continuously involved in criminal activities due

to which there is a breach of public order of the society and apprehension

of danger is created to the general public and their property.

9. We have heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the

parties.

10. Considering the grounds for challenging the order of

detention, it is necessary to consider the mandatory requirement of

disturbing the public order or whether the ordinary law is sufficient in a

given situation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ameena Begum Vs. The State

of Telangana & Ors. reported in (2023) 9SCC 587 has held in para No.18

as under :

5 15.crwp.189.25-JF.odt

"This Court was concerned with the true distinction between a threat to "law and order" and acts "prejudicial to public order", which was not to be determined merely by the nature or quality of the act complained of, but was held to lie, in the proper degree and extent of its impact on the society. It was held that there could be instances where "disturbance of public order" would not be attracted but still, would fall within the scope of maintenance of "law and order". It was held that:- "preventive detention laws- an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations-ought not to have been invoked in this case as a tool for enforcement of "law and order" (sic para 47), especially when the existing legal framework to maintain law and order is sufficient to address the offences under consideration."

11. On considering the nature of the offences which are

considered by the detaining authority for passing the detention order, it

appears that in all the offences, the petitioner along with his friends has

tried to create terror by showing the revolver or other deadly weapons.

12. In first offence vide Crime No.318/2024, the petitioner went

to the hotel of the complainant and when the complainant's son asked

money for beer, the petitioner showed the revolver to the son of the

complainant and thereafter threatened to kill him and left the hotel with

his accomplice. In another offence i.e. Crime No.436/2024, the

petitioner had pelted stones on the house of the complainant as he was

under impression that because of complainant's husband his brother was

punished. It appears that in all the offences the petitioner has given

threats and crimes were registered. In all the three offences, the 6 15.crwp.189.25-JF.odt

petitioner was arrested and released on bail. The main ground of the

petitioner is that though the petitioner was released on bail, the detaining

authority has not considered the conditions imposed in bail orders which

negates the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority.

13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Joyi Kitty Joseph Vs.

Union of India and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 509 wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para No.15 and 16 as under :

"15. We are not examining the conditions imposed by the Magistrate since it was for the detaining authority to look into it and enter into a subjective satisfaction as to whether the same was sufficient to avoid a preventive detention or otherwise, insufficient to restrain him from further involvement in similar smuggling activities. As has been held in Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar.

16. If there is a consideration, then the reasonableness of the consideration could not have been scrutinised by us in judicial review, since we are not sitting in appeal and the provision for preventive detention provide for such a subjective satisfaction to be left untouched by the Courts. However, when there is no such consideration then we have to interfere."

14. It appears from the record that though the petitioner was

released on bail in all the offences, the conditions in bail order are not

considered which were imposed by the Trial Court to record satisfaction

as to whether those conditions are sufficient or not to restrain the detenu

from indulging into any further like activities. From the nature of the

crime it appears that the ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with

such situations. The statements which are recorded by the authority are 7 15.crwp.189.25-JF.odt

also not sufficient to pass the detention order. Considering the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court about consideration of contents of the

bail orders, the subjective satisfaction is not arrived at by the detaining

authority. Hence, the petition is allowed.

15. The detention order dated 14.09.2024 passed by the