Bombay High Court
Rajkumar Lalchand Gupta @ Bail vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 April, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:16360-DB
1/7 09-WP-987-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.987 OF 2025
Rajkumar Lalchand Gupta @ Bail .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Ms. Aisha Z. Ansari a/w Nasreen Ayubi, Advocate for Petitioner.
• Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 04th APRIL, 2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order
dated 11/12/2024 bearing No.D.O. No.03/CP MBVV/ZONE-
2/2024 passed by the Respondent No.2, the Commissioner of
Police, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates,
MANUSHREE Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of
NESARIKAR
Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short 'MPDA Act').
Nesarikar
2/7 09-WP-987-25.odt
2. Heard Ms. Aisha Z. Ansari, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State.
3. The Petitioner was served with the grounds of
detention. In paragraph No.2 of the grounds of the detention a
list of offences registered against him right from the year 2006
upto 2018 are mentioned. They are registered at Nalasopara
Police Station and Tulinj Police Station.
4. In paragraph No.3 list of offences registered against the
Petitioner in the last five years are mentioned. They are as follows:
(i) C.R.No.559/2024 u/s 77, 78, 79, 351 (3), 352 of
BNS. That offence is registered at Tulinj Police
Station on 02/08/2024.
(ii) C.R. No.788/2022 u/s 8 (c), 22 of NDPS Act, u/s
3, 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act dated 11/12/2022,
registered with Tulinj Police Station.
(iii) C.R.No.1272/2021 u/s 326, 367, 323, 452, 504,
506, 427, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal
Code and u/s 3, 25 of the Arms Act, registered at
Tulinj Police Station dated 10/10/2021.
3/7 09-WP-987-25.odt
5. Besides these registered offences, there is a reference
to the two externment proceedings initiated against him in the
year 2016 and 2022. At the bottom of the paragraph No.3, the
Detaining Authority has specifically stated that while passing the
detention order, he had relied on one offence and two
confidential statements mentioned in paragraph No.4, 4(i) and
4(ii). The offence referred to was C.R.No.559/2024 registered
with Tulinj Police Station and two 'in-camera' statements were in
respect of the incidents which had taken place in the first week
of July 2024 and the last week of May 2024, which were in the
nature of extortion.
6. The paragraph No.5 is a crucial paragraph in which he
has stated that he was satisfied that the Petitioner was a
dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(b-1) of MPDA
and while concluding that paragraph it was specifically
mentioned by the Detaining Authority that the Petitioner's
criminal activities were disturbing normal tempo of life of
citizens of the said localities and areas, which can be seen from
paragraph Nos.3 and 4. Thus, while recording his subjective
4/7 09-WP-987-25.odt
satisfaction in paragraph No.5, the Detaining Authority has also
referred to the material reproduced in paragraph No.3.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since
arriving at the subjective satisfaction, the Detaining Authority
had referred to material in paragraph No.3 which included C.R.
No.788/2022 and C.R.No.1272/2021 both registered at Tulinj
Police Station; it was necessary for the Detaining Authority to
have giving the documents pertaining to those registered offence
to the Petitioner, to enable him to make the earliest
representation dealing with those allegations. However, the
documents pertaining to these two particular offences were not
given to the detenu. Therefore, the entire process is vitiated. She
invited out attention to the grounds No.5(vi) taken by her
specifically in the Petition, wherein it is mentioned that the
documents pertaining to the incident dated 11/12/2022 and
10/10/2021 were not given to the Petitioner along with the
grounds of detention. Those incident pertained to the C.R.
No.788/2022 and C.R.No.1272/2021 of Tulinj Police Station.
5/7 09-WP-987-25.odt
8. Learned APP tried to respond to these submissions by
referring to the affidavit-in-reply. But he could not point out
anything relatable to the specific ground raised by the Petitioner
in that behalf. The response of the Respondent No.2 in the
affidavit-in-reply at paragraph No.11 with reference to ground
No.5(vi) of the Petition is simply that the order of detention
relied on one offence and two 'in-camera' as referred in
paragraph No.4(i) and 4(ii) respectively. But there is no
reference to the subjective satisfaction mentioned in paragraph
No.5 of the grounds of detention which refers to the material in
the paragraph No.3, which in turn refers to C.R. No.788/2022
and C.R.No.1272/2021. The affidavit-in-reply is completely
silent on this aspect. Therefore, the contention that the
documents pertaining to these two particular offences were not
given to the Petitioner is a fact which has remained
uncontroverted by the authorities.
9. These two particular offences were important because
while reaching the subjective satisfaction, the Detaining
Authority had referred to this particular material as well. In this
6/7 09-WP-987-25.odt
view of the matter, the Petitioner is deprived of making effective
representation before the authorities and the State Government
because he did not have the relevant documents on which the
Detaining Authority had based his subjective satisfaction. It is
also not clear whether the Detaining Authority himself had those
documents before him.
10. On this count, the detention order is not sustainable
and is liable to be set aside.
11. Hence the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a), which reads thus:
"(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to
issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the said order
of detention Order D.O.NO.03/CP/MBVV/
DP/Zone-2/2024, dated 11.12.2024 and
7/7 09-WP-987-25.odt
pleased to direct that the detenu
RAJKUMAR LALCHAND GUPTA @ BAIL
be set at liberty."
(ii) The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
(iii) The Petition is disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
