Bombay High Court
Sonu Manoj Uke vs State Iof Maharashtra on 23 April, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:4275-DB
1 wp119.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.119/2025
Sau. Sonu W/o Manoj Uke
Aged 31 Years, Occu. labour,
R/o. Station Fail, Wardha
Tahsil and District Wardha. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Home Department,
2nd floor, Mantralaya, Madam
Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru
Chowk, Mumbai 400 032.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Collector and District Magistrate,
Wardha, Tahsil and District Wardha.
3. The Police Station Officer,
Police Station Wardha City,
Wardha. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Rajat A. Biranware, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----------------
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 4.4.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 23.4.2025.
2 wp119.2025
JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the
detention order dated 27.09.2024 passed by respondent No.2
Collector/District Magistrate, Wardha against the petitioner as per
the provisions of Section 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 "M.P.D.A. Act") which is confirmed by respondent
No.1 on 07.11.2024.
3. For passing the detention order, the detaining
authority has taken into account nine offences and relied upon
one recent offence within last six months registered against the
petitioner.
3 wp119.2025
4. The recent offence which forms the basis of the order
of detention is as under:-
(i) Crime No.990/2024 registered on 27.06.2024 at Police
Station Wardha City, under Sections 65(e) and 77(a) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
(ii) In Crime No.990/2024 thirteen bottles of liquor worth
about Rs.30,000/- were seized. In the said crime, the Chemical
Analyzer's report is awaited. The said recent crime was committed
after a preventive action was taken against the petitioner under
Section 110(e)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In
Crime No.451/24 registered on 18.03.2024 under Sections 332,
353, 427, 294, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, there is no seizure and therefore, no C.A. report while in all
the remaining seven crimes the Chemical Analyzer's reports are
available.
In Crime No.990/2024, the detenu was released on
bail after furnishing cash security of Rs.3,500/- and a personal
bond of Rs. 15,000/- and in Crime No.451/2024 vide order
4 wp119.2025
dated 06.04.2024 the detenu has been released on issuance of
notice under Section 41(1)(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The opinion of the Civil Surgeon, District Hospital,
Wardha, indicates that consumption of ethyl alcohol in excess
quantity is harmful to human health and causes mental illness
such as depression, anxiety, anti-social personality disorder and so
on. It may also cause damage to brain and nervous system, the
functioning of heart, liver, pancreas and kidney.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has pressed into
service various grounds to challenge the detention order, mainly
as under:-
(a) The petitioner does labour work and is a single mother
with an eight year old child who is dependent on her. Crime
No.451/2024, punishable under Section 353 of I.P.C. has been
falsely registered by the complainant who is a police authority just
to add on to an offence for filling up the crime chart.
(b) The respondents had not offered opportunity to give
proper explanation regarding the criminal cases and failed to
5 wp119.2025
consider documents produced by the petitioner and no complaint
has been lodged by any person against the detenu who is residing
in the same locality.
(c) The respondents have not stated in the impugned order
that there was an alarm, harm, danger to the property and public
due to the pending cases against the detenu. Moreover, neither
date of 'verification' is mentioned nor date of 'seen' is mentioned
below the statements of secret witnesses.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Biranware,
submitted that there is no reference of any discussion or
interaction with the witnesses "A" and "B" by the authority who
has verified the confidential statements. The statements of secret
witnesses are vague because no place, date and time of incident is
mentioned. He further submitted that there is no C.A. Report in
Crime No.990/2024 opining that the manufacture of illicit liquor
is adversely affecting the public health. He further argued that it
took near about forty one days from the order of detention till the
State Government issued the order of confirmation of detention.
6 wp119.2025
7. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Rao has relied on the
affidavit-in-reply to contradict the arguments made by the
petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is residing at her
maternal family along with two brothers who are also indulging
into spurious liquor business. It is submitted by the learned A.P.P.
that out of the nine offences registered against the detenu, seven
of them are under trial, and there no reason to register false
offences against the petitioner by the police authority. The
statements of the secret witnesses were recorded on 07.08.2024
and 08.08.2024 by the Senior Police Inspector, Police Station,
Wardha City, Wardha and verified by the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer on 26.08.2024. The respondent No.2 has also duly
verified the in-camera statements of the witnesses.
8. Learned A.P.P strongly contended that the detaining
authority had granted opportunity to the detenu to defend herself
by making a representation. So also, the Advisory Board
personally heard the detenu and after considering the entire
material, recommended the State Government the detenu be
7 wp119.2025
detained and for that purpose, the detention order is rightly
passed. Furthermore, it is submitted that the detention order was
passed on 27.09.2024 and the same was forwarded to the State
Government for it's approval on 30.09.2024. During intervening
period, the petitioner was absconding. On 01.10.2024 the
Superintendent of Wardha informed that the petitioner has been
taken into custody after serving the order of detention upon her.
9. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
perused the record.
10. The petitioner is detained as a bootlegger. One recent
offence is considered for passing the detention order along with
eight other offences which were committed by the petitioner
within the period of one year. Crime No.990/2024 is registered
against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections
65(e) and 77(a) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. In the
said offence the petitioner was arrested and immediately released
8 wp119.2025
on bail by the Magistrate. Though this offence is considered
which was registered during the period of six months, the other
eight offences are considered by the detaining authority for
passing the detention order. The C.A. report in said recent offence
i.e. Crime No.990/2024 is not available. It appears that relying
on the C.A. reports of earlier offences, the detention order is
passed. It is necessary to consider the C.A. Report placed on
record to see whether the liquor is injurious to health of public at
large. In this case, the C.A. Report is not available of the recent
crime i.e. Crime No.990/2024. C.A. Reports of earlier offences
are not helpful to the detaining authority to pass the detention
order.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of District
Collector, Ananthapur V/s. V. Laxmanna reported in 2005 DGLS
(SC) 2745 in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has made following
observations:-
"7. We do not think this argument of the learned
counsel can be accepted. If the detention is on the
9 wp119.2025
ground that the detenu is indulging in manufacture
or transport or sale of arrack then that by itself
would not become an activity prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order because the same can
be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the
Excise Act but if the arrack sold by the detenu is
dangerous to public health then under the Act, it
becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order, therefore, it becomes necessary for
the detaining authority to be satisfied on material
available to him that the arrack dealt with by the
detenu is an arrack which is dangerous to public
health to attract the provisions of the Act and if the
detaining authority is satisfied that such material
exists either in the form of report of the Chemical
Examiner or otherwise copy such material should
also be given to the detenu to afford him an
opportunity to make an effective representation.
8. Therefore, while holding that dealing with
arrack which is dangerous to public health would
become an act prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order attracting the provisions of the Act. It
must be held that it is obligatory for the detaining
authority to provide the material on which it has
based its conclusion on this point. Therefore, we are
in agreement with the High Court that if the
detaining authority is of the opinion that it is
necessary to detain a person under the Act to
prevent him from indulging in sale of goods
dangerous for human consumption the same should
be based on some material and the copies of the
such material should be given to the detenu."
10 wp119.2025
12. As C.A. Report of the recent crime i.e. Crime
No.990/2024 is not available and the extraneous material i.e.
eight earlier offences are considered while passing the detention
order, the detention order passed by the detaining authority
stands vitiated.
13. Two confidential statements on which the detaining
authority has relied for passing the detention order are of similar
nature. Both the statements are given by the lady witnesses.
Witness "A" has stated that when she asked the petitioner why the
customer is lying there in front of her house and he is
vomiting/puking, at that time, petitioner quarrelled with her. In
another statement, witness "B" has stated that when police came
in her house to conduct raid and the witness went there to give
understanding not to do such business, the petitioner quarrelled
with her and gave threats. Due to fear she has not lodged the
complaint. From both the statements it does not appear that it
affects the 'public order'. The public order is not disturbed
11 wp119.2025
because of the incidents which are mentioned by the secret
witnesses "A" and "B". C.A. Report of the recent crime i.e. Crime
No.990/2024 is necessary to consider as to whether the liquor is
injurious to public at large, which is not made available in the
recent crime which is considered by the detaining authority while
passing the detention order. Therefore, we are of the opinion that
the order passed by the detaining authority is required to be
quashed and set aside.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses B and C.
The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other crime.
Rule accordingly.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/04/2025 10:51:30
