Bombay High Court
Suyash @ Tatya Somnath Ghodke vs District Magistrate And Anr on 4 April, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:16198-DB
Gokhale 1 of 8 3-wp-307-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 307 OF 2025
Suyash @ Tatya Somnath Ghodke ..Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w. Anjali Raut for Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 4 APRIL 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order Out
Ward No.PGM/MPDA/SR/06/01/2024, dated 03.09.2024, issued
U/s.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 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short 'MPDA'), by the District
Magistrate, Pune.
2. Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the State.
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2025.04.08
13:29:58
+0530
2 of 8 3-wp-307-25
3. The grounds of detention which were served on the
Petitioner are annexed to the Petition. In those grounds, there is a
reference to various offences committed by him and the material
relied on by the detaining authority to reach its subjective
satisfaction which necessitated detention of the petitioner. The
grounds of detention referred to C.R.No.127 of 2024, registered at
Natepute police station, under sections 324, 341, 323, 504 and
506 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C. The ground 4(a)(i) referred to the F.I.R. in
respect of the incident dated 05.04.2024. In that offence, the
complainant was assaulted by the detenue and his associates with
a weapon like koyta. The investigating agency had issued notice
U/s.41A of the Cr.p.c. to the Petitioner on 07.04.2024.
4. The ground 4(b)(i) referred to the in-camera statement
of witness 'A' which was recorded on 15.04.2024 in respect of two
incidents. The first incident had taken place two weeks prior to
15.04.2024 and the second incident had taken place on
12.04.2024. The Petitioner had demanded extortion money and
had actually taken away Rs.2400/- from that witness on
12.04.2024 by pointing a firearm.
3 of 8 3-wp-307-25
5. The witness 'B' had given his statement which was
referred to in Ground 4(b)(ii). That statement was recorded on
22.04.2024 in respect of the incident which had taken place on
21.04.2024 in the evening. Again, the Petitioner had shown a
firearm and had told this witness to pay the money.
6. In paragraph-5 of the grounds of detention, there is a
reference to seven registered offences from the year 2019 to 2023
at Walchandnagar police station, Vadgaon Nimbalkar police station
and Natepute police station. There is also a reference to preventive
action taken U/s.110(e)(g) of the Cr.p.c., in June 2023.
7. The detaining authority in his concluding opinion in
paragraph-5 has stated that it was clear from all that material that
the detenue's actions were dangerous to the society and that he
had created terror in the area. His criminal behaviour was a threat
to public order. Having stated so, in the next paragraph i.e. in
paragraph-6 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority
has recorded his subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was a
dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(b-i) of the
4 of 8 3-wp-307-25
MPDA. In paragraph-7 the detaining authority has stated that he
had carefully gone through the material placed before him and the
confidential statements recorded of witnesses 'A' and 'B'. Having
observed thus, he had passed the detention order.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had raised grounds
(a) to (f) in the petition, but she restricted her arguments only to
ground (e) mentioned in the petition. Her contention in that
ground is that the statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' were recorded
on 15.04.2024 and 22.04.2024. After that, there were no
prejudicial activities attributed to the Petitioner. In spite of that,
the detention order was passed after a gap of almost four months.
This has snapped the live-link. She submitted that, if the activities
of the petitioner were so dangerous to the maintenance of the
public order, then the authority ought to have taken immediate
action against the petitioner. According to her and as mentioned in
that ground (e), the said delay showed that the authority had
taken a very casual approach and the detention order will have to
be set aside on that ground alone.
5 of 8 3-wp-307-25
9. In response to this argument and the grounds raised in
this behalf, learned APP referred to the Affidavit filed by the
detaining authority. He submitted that, there was no delay in
passing the order and the detaining authority has explained as to
how the proposal for detention progressed from April 2024
onwards. He invited our attention to the reply given by the
detaining authority in paragraph-11 of his affidavit.
10. We have considered these submissions. According to the
detaining authority, the 'in-camera' statements of the witnesses 'A'
and 'B' were verified by the Sub Divisional Officer, Daund Division,
Pune on 27.04.2024. After such verification, the report to that
effect was forwarded to the Police Inspector, Walchandnagar police
station. It is further mentioned in the Affidavit that, after
completing the necessary formalities the proposal was forwarded
to the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, on 14.08.2024 by the
Sponsoring Authority. The proposal was sent to the detaining
authority on 20.08.2024. On 22.08.2024, the detaining authority
carefully went through the papers and gave his endorsement. He
gave his approval for the same proposal on 22.08.2024. After that,
6 of 8 3-wp-307-25
necessary work of typing the grounds of detention, translation of
documents etc. was completed and the detention order was issued
on 03.09.2024.
11. From this affidavit, it is clear that actual movement of
the proposal started from 14.08.2024 onwards. From that point
onwards, the authorities have acted promptly. There does not
appear to be any delay from 14.08.2024 till 03.09.2024, but the
Affidavit is totally silent about the movement of the proposal or
even about initiation of the proposal from 27.04.2024 up to
14.08.2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in
submitting that, if the petitioner's activities were so dangerous
which had the effect of affecting public order adversely, the
Sponsoring authority should have acted immediately from
27.04.2024, when the 'in-camera' statements were verified. Till
14.08.2024 nothing had transpired. The petitioner had not
committed any objectionable activities during that phase. Similarly,
the sponsoring authority had also not taken trouble to initiate the
proceedings. Therefore, suddenly on 14.08.2024 the proposal
being sent to the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, for
7 of 8 3-wp-307-25
consideration of proposal does not show that there was real
necessity to initiate the proceedings in the nature of preventive
detention which is a drastic step. The detaining authority has not
considered this aspect. The period between 27.04.2024 to
14.08.2024 is totally unexplained by the authorities and, therefore,
we find substance in the submission that the detention order is
passed belatedly from the last activity. The live-link was snapped
and it was not necessary to take the step of issuing the order in the
nature of preventive detention. On this ground alone, the petition
succeeds and the detention order is required to be set aside.
12. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (b); which reads thus:
"(b) The order of Detention bearing
No.PGM/MPDA/SR/06/01/2024 Dated 03.09.2024
issued under Section 3 of M.P.D.A. Act 1981 by the
Respondent No.1 be quashed and set aside and on
quashing, the same the petitioner be ordered for
release forthwith."
ii) The Petitioner be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.
8 of 8 3-wp-307-25
iii) The Petition is disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
