Bombay High Court
Hukumsingh Ramsingh Kalyani vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S.M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:18697-DB
:1: 4-wp-1076-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1076 OF 2025
Hukumsingh Ramsingh Kalyani .....Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Police
Pune city and others .....Respondents
-----
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, Advocate a/w. Anjali Raut for the Petitioner.
Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondents-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 17th APRIL, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]
1. Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr.J.P. Yagnik, learned APP for the Respondents-
State.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order
dated 18.11.2024 bearing outward
No.CRIME/PCB/DET/WANAVDI/KALYANI/943/2024 passed by
the Respondent No.1-the Commissioner of Police, Pune City
issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons
1 of 7
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 4-wp-1076-25.odt
engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981
(for short 'MPDA Act'). Along with the detention order, committal
order was also passed on the same day directing that the
Petitioner be detained at Amravati Central Prison.
3. The Petitioner was served with the grounds of
detention dated 18.11.2024. In the grounds of detention, the
Detaining Authority has described the past activities in
paragraph-3. There are seven offences registered against him
which are mentioned in paragraph-3.1; they are registered at
Wanavdi Police Station, Mundhwa Police Station, Hadapsar Police
Station, Chandan Nagar Police Station, Sangvi Police Station and
Pimpri Police Station between the years 2020 to 2024. There is a
reference to two preventive actions taken against him in the year
2020 and 2023 initiated by Wanavdi Police Station under Section
110(a)(g) of Cr.P.C. Significantly, in paragraph-3.1, the Detaining
Authority has mentioned that the past offfences mentioned in the
chart were only referred to show that the Petitioner has been
habitually committing serious offences. In paragraph-4, he has
specifically mentioned that as a Detaining Authority he has relied
mainly upon the registered offence of Wanavdi Police Station
2 of 7
:3: 4-wp-1076-25.odt
vide C.R. No.336/2024 and two in-camera statements. The
Detaining Authority has further mentioned that he had
considered the registered offence mentioned in paragraph-5.1
and the two in-camera statements mentioned in paragraphs-6.1
& 6.2 to issue the detention order. Thus he has very specifically
mentioned that he was relying on only C.R. No.336/2024 of
Wanavdi Police Station and two in-camera statements for
passing the detention order. C.R. No.336/2024 at Wanavdi
police station was registered under Sections 307, 324, 143, 147,
148, 149, 323, 427, 504, 506(2), 120-B of IPC, under Section
4(25) of the Arms Act, under Sections 37 and 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act. The said offence pertains to the incident dated
5.5.2024 and the main incident dated 6.5.2024 during which the
Petitioner and his associates had assaulted the complainant
therein with sword and similar weapons.
4. The statement of Witness 'A' refers to the incident
dated 4.9.2024 when the Petitioner had extorted Rs.500/- from
him by showing the knife. The statement of Witness 'B' refers to
the incident dated 7.9.2024 when by showing a koyata the
3 of 7
:4: 4-wp-1076-25.odt
Petitioner forcefully removed Rs.700/- from this witness.
5. These are the materials on which the detention order
was passed.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that
inspite of taking specific stand that the Detaining Authority was
relying only on one registered offence and the two in-camera
statements, in paragraph-8 again he has gone back to the
offences and preventive actions mentioned in paragraph-3, 3.1
and 3.2 of the grounds of detention. She submitted that this has
created confusion and, therefore, the Petitioner could not make
effective earliest representation challenging the detention order.
She further submitted that this also shows non-application of
mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, thereby vitiating his
subjective satisfaction.
7. Learned APP relied on the affidavit filed by the
Detaining Authority in reference to this particular ground taken
by the Petitioner in ground (d) of the memo of the Petition. With
reference to the said ground taken by the Petitioner, the
Detaining Authority has again reiterated that the activities in
4 of 7
:5: 4-wp-1076-25.odt
paragraph-3.1 of the grounds of detention were mentioned to
show that the Petitioner was a habitual criminal involved in
continuous criminal activities. Learned APP, therefore, submitted
that the detention order is passed on proper subjective
satisfaction.
8. We have considered these submissions. As mentioned
earlier and as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
Petitioner, the Detaining Authority has taken contrary stand in
different paragraphs of the grounds of detention. He has
specifically stated in paragraph-4 of the grounds of detention that
he had considered only C.R. No.336/2024 registered at Wanavdi
Police Station and two in-camera statements to pass the said
detention order. However in paragraph-8, he has then
mentioned that he had referred to the offences and preventive
action taken in paragraphs-3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the grounds of
detention to show that he was a habitual criminal involved in the
continuous criminal activities. If that is the case then his
subjective satisfaction definitely stands vitiated because he has
relied on that particular material to reach his subjective
satisfaction that the Petitioner was a habitual criminal. The
5 of 7
:6: 4-wp-1076-25.odt
definition of the 'dangerous person', as mentioned in Section 2(b-
1) of the MPDA Act is as follows:
"Section - 2 (b-1) :
"dangerous person" means a person, who either
by himself or as a member or leader of a gang,
habitually commits, or attempts to commit or
abets the commission of any of the offences
punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of
the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences
punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act,
1959; "
9. The main ingredient of this section is the habitual
nature of the activities on the part of the detenue. For this main
consideration, the Detaining Authority had to revert back to the
past activities and past offences mentioned in paragraphs-3, 3.1
and 3.2 of the grounds of detention, therefore, he could not have
said that he was passing the detention order based on C.R.
No.336/2024 of Wanavdi police station and two in-camera
statements only. Thus, his stand is totally contrary. It certainly
created confusion and his subjective satisfaction is not based on
the consistent material. On all these reasons, the subject
satisfaction is vitiated and the detention order is not sustainable.
6 of 7
:7: 4-wp-1076-25.odt
On these grounds, the detention order is required to be quashed
and set aside.
10. Hence, the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
i. The Petition is allowed.
ii. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b),
which is as follows :
"(b) The order of Detention bearing No. CRIME
PCB/WANWADI/KALYANI/943/2024 Dated
18.11.2024 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."
iii. The Petitioner be released forthwith if not required in
any other case.
iv. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.
( S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
2025.04.25 7 of 7
16:35:18
+0530
