Bombay High Court
Sabdar Ali Akram @ Ashraf Ali vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 15 April, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:4130-DB
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1023 OF 2024
1. Sabdar Ali Akram @Ashraf Ali Petitioner
Aged about 31 years, Occ- Labour
R/o Katol, Nagpur
1. Saif @ Saifu s/o Akram@ Ashraf Ali Detenu
(Presently at Kolhapur Central Prison)
-Versus-
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Home Department
(Special) Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Collector/District Magistrate, Nagpur Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.. Mir Nagman Ali Mir Jafar Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. H.D. Marathe, A.P.P. for R/1 and 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 15/04/2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
1) Heard.
2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, the Criminal Writ Petition is
heard finally.
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
3) The petitioner Sabdar Ali Akram @Ashraf Ali, who is the
brother of detenu Saif @ Saifu S/o Akram@ Ashraf Ali, has
preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order
passed against the detenu on 26th June, 2024, by Respondent no.2 -
The Collector/District Magistrate, Nagpur, and confirmed by
Respondent no.1 on 7th November, 2024 under Section 12(1) 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, (hereinafter referred to as
("MPDA Act"). The petitioner has been detained as a "Dangerous
Person".
4) The detention order is based on one Crime i.e., C.R. no.
300/2024 registered with Katol Police Station on 08.04.2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 392, 452, 143, 147, 149,
504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)
(5), 3(2)(5a) of the Atrocities Act, 2015, and two in-camera
statements of witnesses "A" and "B".
5) In Crime no.300/2024, the complainant, one Rupnath
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
Dhoke, aged 61 years was hit with iron rod on his head and on
shoulder by the detenu and his associates. The petitioner ransacked
his firecracker shop and threw away the goods. It happened after son
of the complainant was beaten up by detenu. He then fled to the
shop of Shamsunder Dhoke, elder brother of the complainant he was
also assaulted and robbed of Rs. 4000/- by the detenu. Moreover,
the elder son of complainant, Gaurav was also followed by the
detenu and his accomplices, Fatteh Akram Ali, Haider Ali, Sukhbir
Singh Gill, Shailender Suresh Singh Bais and two Iranian women
who entered the complainant's shop and house with iron rods with
an intention to kill and thereby threatened to kill them.
6) When the complainant and witnesses submitted their caste
certificates, it was confirmed that they belong to Scheduled Caste.
Therefore, the provisions of the Atrocities Act were attracted in the
said crime.
7) In-camera statement of anonymous witness "A" reveal that,
he was beaten up with wooden stick, fist blows, kicked on chest and
assaulted. The detenu also threatened the crowd gathered at the spot
with abusive language.
8) In the second incident, the petitioner after buying fish
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
from the shop of witness was hit by a stranger due to which the fish
fell on the ground. As a result of which, the detenu punched the said
stranger on his nose which caused bleeding, abused him, then took
out knife from the waist and attempted to inflict a blow on abdomen
of the unknown person. However, he evaded the blow and ran from
the market. The petitioner threatened the customers with knife who
stood in front of him on the street.
9) A number of grounds have been raised in the present
petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed onto certain
grounds as under:
(a) That perusal of Crime no 300/2024 as well as in-camera
statements of witness "A" and "B" would show that, events narrated
do not lead to a conclusion that there was any disturbance of public
order and therefore impugned order passed on the basis of such
material is required to be quashed and set aside.
(b) That there is no independent verification of contents of in-
camera statements by visiting the spot and therefore, in absence of
proper verification, in-camera statements could not be relied for
passing the detention order.
10) Learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ali, submitted
that the only endorsement "verified and seen" put on the in-camera
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
statements is without any date which nowhere points out to the fact
that detaining authority was satisfied about the truthfulness of the
statements. He further submitted that the alleged incident in Crime
no. 300/2024 relates to an individual and has nothing to do with
breach of public order.
11) The learned advocate argued that last offence registered
against the detenu was on 08.04.2024 and detention order came to
be passed on 26.09.2024, snapping the live link to pass the
detention order.
12) On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. Marathe, appearing
for the Respondents/State submitted that the Respondent no.2 has
rightly performed his duty of ascertaining the truthfulness of the in-
camera statements after discussing with Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Katol, who had verified the statements and an express
mention to that effect is reflected at ground no.8 appended to the
impugned detention order. He further submitted that the
satisfaction expressed in ground nos.6 to 8 of the impugned order
clearly speaks about the illegal and criminal acts of the detenu which
caused disturbance to the public order and therefore the detaining
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
authority was subjectively satisfied that the detenu was required to
be detained.
13) It is to be noted from the impugned detention order that
the sole incident is considered along with two statements. The crime
which is considered against the petitioner is under Sections 307,
392, 452, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5a) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015). The ground
which was raised by the petitioner is that no public order is affected
as per the crime which is considered by the detaining authority for
passing the detention order. The petitioner has relied on the
judgment of this Court in support of his argument that the offence
committed in the said crime is against an individual and it does not
make out a case for breach of public order. He has relied on the
judgment in the cases of (1) Bharat Kisan Mekale Vs. Commissioner
of Police and others reported in 2021 DGLS (Bom.)1243 and (2)
Nilesh Bansilal Gaywal @ Ghaywal Vs. State of Maharashtra and
ors. reported in 2021 DGLS (Bom.)952.
14) On perusal of the nature of the crime which is considered,
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
the detenu has assaulted the son of the complainant. The son of the
complainant was not known to the detenu. It is not the case that out
of enmity the detenu has assaulted the son of the complainant. The
detenu along with his friends came on motor cycle and due to a dash
they fell down and the detenu along with his friends beat the son of
the complainant. When he entered the shop, the detenu beat the
complainant, and also threw the goods in the shop. Thereafter, he
went to the shop of the brother of the complainant and also
destroyed the goods and assaulted him. It clearly reflects that the
detenu had created terror in the said market area by entering in the
shops and destroying it and beating the persons with deadly
weapons. The offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code is registered. It is not necessary to consider number of
offences, one offence is also sufficient for passing the detention order
if it disturbs the public order.
15) Statements of two witnesses also show that the petitioner
had created terror in the market area. As per the statement of witness
A, a vehicle carrying vegetables was passing by the lane, where, the
vegetable shop of the detenu was situated and he stopped the said
vehicle, assaulted the person, and asked as to why he has entered the
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
lane with the said vehicle and thereby created terror in the said area.
On perusal of the said statement, it appears that the statement was
recorded on 24/08/2024 and it was verified by the Superintendent
of Police on 23/09/2024 and it was seen by the detaining authority.
16) Witness B has also stated that he is fish seller and the
detenu has taken the fish from his shop. When he asked for
Rs.400/-, detenu gave Rs. 200/- and abused him when the
complainant asked for remaining Rs.200/- while quarreling with the
complainant, one person who was going from there, he dashed the
detenu and the fish fell down on the street. The detenu became
angry and he assaulted the said person with fists and blows. He took
out the knife and ran behind him and created terror in the said
market area.
17) In both the statements, it appears that the detenu had
created terror in public place. It was not against an individual,
therefore, there is no substance in the submission made by the
petitioner that the offence which is considered is against an
individual. It definitely creates terror and it affects the public order
and not law and order situation.
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
18) The ground of delay is also mentioned by the petitioner
stating that there is a delay in the commission of last crime and
passing of the order of detention, the last crime was committed in
the month of April and the order was passed in September.
Therefore, there is delay in passing the detention order. Though,
the crime is of the month of April, the time starts to run from the
date of the statement of the witnesses, verification of it and
verification by the detaining authority. On perusal of the statement
of Witness A, it appears that the statement was recorded on
24/08/2024. The Superintendent of Police verified it on
23/09/2024 before passing the order and thereafter it is seen by the
authority. Though, there is no date mentioned, under the signature
of the detaining authority, it clearly shows that the Superintendent
of Police had signed it on 23/09/2024, and therefore there is no
delay in passing the detention order. Therefore, the judgment on
which the petitioner has relied on is not helpful to him. The
subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on the basis of two
statements and one crime, we do not find this is a fit case, where we
should exercise our Constitutional power to set aside the detention
order. We may also refer to the opinion of the Advisory Board,
Kavita
cri.wp 1023-24.odt
which shows that the detenu was heard through video conferencing
and 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.
19) The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed.
20) Rule stands discharged.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/04/2025 19:34:45 Kavita
