[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bharat Rukmaji Sampate vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 1 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:33003-DB
(1) cri wp 1131.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1131 OF 2025
Bharat s/o Rukmaji Sampate
Age 24 yrs, Occ. At present Nil
R/o Pangaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. .... PETITIONER
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Home Department, Second Floor,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - 32.
2. The District Magistrate,
Latur District.
3. The District Superintendent of Police,
District Latur.
4. The Asst. Police Inspector,
Police Station MIDC,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. .... RESPONDENTS
.....
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj V. Gundre
APP for Respondent / State : Mr. P.S. Patil
.....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 01.12.2025
(2) cri wp 1131.25
JUDGMENT:
- (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard at length Mr.
Gundre, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Patil, the
learned APP for the Respondents Authorities.
2. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner challenges the detention order bearing
no.2025/MAG/MPDA/Desk-2/WS-158 dated 09.05.2025 passed by the
Respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 16.05.2025 passed by
the Respondent No.1/Competent Authority under 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 (in short
the "MPDA Act").
3. The Petitioner raised substantial question regarding the
manner in which his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is being violated. Therefore, his personal liberty was
curtailed and the procedure prescribed under the law was not followed.
The Petitioner further contended that the order of preventive detention for
(3) cri wp 1131.25
a period of 12 months passed by the Respondent No.2 and confirmation
granted by the Respondent No.1 was in a mechanical manner.
4. Advocate Mr. Gundre the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner canvassed that, the detaining authority relied upon ten FIRs,
however, investigation are pending in two crimes i.e. crimes bearing
nos.306/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 308(2), 115, 352,
351(2), 3(5) of the BNS Act registered with Shivajinagar Police Station on
24.07.2024 and crime no.458/2024 registered on 15.11.2024 with
Shivajinagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section
303(2), 3(5) of BNS Act. However, trial in respect of other offences are
pending on the file of the competent Court. Further, the detaining
authority relied on in camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B" which
does not reveal about breach of public peace but those are against both the
witnesses in person. The Petitioner did not act in any manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of the public order and even there is total non-
compliance of Section 3 of the MPDA Act. It is further canvassed that after
recording of statements of both the witnesses, the Respondent No.2
Authority passed the impugned order on 09.05.2025 after a lapse of more
than one month. Therefore, there is no live link with the alleged incident.
The Petitioner is already enlarged on bail in the crimes registered against
(4) cri wp 1131.25
him, however, post conduct of the Petitioner is not being taken into
consideration by the detaining authority. Therefore, there is no merit
available before the detaining authority to reach at the subjective
satisfaction, hence, the impugned order is vitiated. It is further canvassed
on behalf of the Petitioner that the detaining authority failed to record any
findings that the Petitioner was held guilty by any Court of law for
disturbing the public peace and without there being any evidence on
record, the Petitioner has been detained without giving specific reasons and
his personal liberty envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
has been curtailed. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, bad in law
and hence prayed for quashing and setting aside the same.
5. To buttress these submissions the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment dated 11.11.2025 passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Kolhapur Circuit Bench, in W.P.
(Cri.) 3071 of 2025, in case of Haridas Shankar Gaikwad V/s.
Commissioner of Police, Solapur & Ors., wherein it has been observed that
the detaining authority has not considered the efficacy of the conditions
imposed by the jurisdictional Court while enlarging the Petitioner on bail
and enter any satisfaction, however subjective it is, as to the conditions not
being sufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in such activities,
(5) cri wp 1131.25
therefore, it is to be borne in mind that when a person is enlarged on bail
by Competent Criminal Court, great caution should be exercised in
scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based
on the very same charge, which is to be tried by the criminal court in view
of law laid down in the case of Shaikh Nazneen V/s. State of Telangana
and Ors.; (2023) 9 SCC 633.
6. Per contra, the learned APP strongly supported the action
taken against the Petitioner. He submits that the Petitioner is a dangerous
person as defined under Section 2(b-i) of the MPDA Act. The detaining
authority has relied on the two in camera statements of the witnesses and
subjective satisfaction has been arrived. Therefore, there is no illegality in
the procedure adopted while recording the in camera statements of the
witnesses. It is further canvassed that, on 03.03.2025, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur passed an order below Exh.5 in Sessions
Case No.44/2025 and enlarged the Petitioner on bail on furnishing PR of
Rs. One Lakh with solvent surety in the like amount with a condition that
the Petitioner (Accused) shall not enter in the Latur city till the conclusion
of the trial except to attend the dates of said matter. However, on
25.04.2025, the witness-A gave his statement that, on 07.03.2025 at
around 3.00 pm., when we was proceeding on his motorcycle from Shivaji
(6) cri wp 1131.25
Chowk to New Renapur Naka and upon reaching at New Renapur Naka,
the present Petitioner and 2-3 other people stopped his motorcycle and
asked for money for food, threatened him and snatched Rs.2,000/- from
his shirt pocket. So also, witness-B stated in his in camera statement that
he knows the Petitioner very well and since few years the Petitioner started
hooliganism and people fear him. Due to the terror of the Petitioner
nobody came forward to lodge a report against him. On 07.03.2025, at
around 5.00 pm when the witness-B was present in his shop at that time
the Petitioner along with 3-4 unknown persons visited on two motorcycles
in front of his shop under the state of intoxication and on the point of
koyta (deadly weapon) snatched approximately Rs.1200/-. Though, by
order dated 03.03.2025 the entry of the Petitioner in Latur city was
prohibited except on the dates of the matter but the Petitioner entered into
Latur City and committed serious nature of offences. Therefore, all the
material available on record proves about proximity of time and live link.
Therefore, all the statutory requirements are complied while passing the
impugned detention order. In support of these submissions the learned
APP placed reliance on the case of Phulwari Jagdamba Prasad Pathak
(smt) V/s R. H. Mendonca and Others; (2000) 6 SCC 751 . Therefore, the
Petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to interfere with the
impugned detention order, hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
(7) cri wp 1131.25
7. During the course of hearing, we have gone through the record
with the assistance of both the sides. So also, we have gone through the
following case laws:
1. Nevnath Buji etc. vs. State of Telangana & Ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367
2. Kanu Biswas vs. State of West Bengal,; (1972) 3 SCC 831
3. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar; 1966 (1) SCR 709
4. Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs. M.M. Mehta (1995) 3 SCC 237
5. Pushkar Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal; AIR 1970 SC 852
6. Phulwari Jagdamba Prasad Pathak (smt) V/s R. H. Mendonca and Others;
(2000) 6 SCC 751
7. Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana & Ors.; (2023) 9 SCC 587
8. On considering the above referred decisions, the legal position
emerges is that, whether the detaining authority while passing the
impugned order arrived at the subjective satisfaction and whether the
procedure as contemplated under the MPDA Act has been complied or not.
In Nevnath Buji cited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated
that illegal detention orders cannot be sustained and, therefore, strict
compliance is required to be made, as it is a question of liberty of a citizen.
In Ameena Begum cited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the
true distinction between a threat to "law and order" and acts "prejudicial to
public order" and it is stated that it cannot be determined merely by the
nature or quality of the act complained of, but in the proper degree and
(8) cri wp 1131.25
extent of its impact on the society. Further, it is observed that "When bail
was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the
detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient
to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities; which is the
very basis of the preventive detention ordered. In Phulwari Jagdamba
Prasad Pathak (smt) cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has sustained
detention order, which was passed by relying on in camera statements of
the witnesses to arrive at a subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under:
"16. Then comes the crucial question whether 'in-camera'
statements of persons/witnesses can be utilised for the purpose of
arriving at subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for
passing the order of detention. Our attention has not been drawn to
any provision of the Act which expressly or impliedly lays down
the type of material which can form the basis of a detention order
under Section 3 of the Act. Preventive detention measure is harsh,
but it becomes necessary in larger interest of society. It is in the
nature of a precautionary measure taken for preservation of public
order. The power is to be used with caution and circumspection.
For the purpose of exercise of the power it is not necessary to
prove to the hilt that the person concerned had committed any of
the offences as stated in the Act. It is sufficient if from the material
available on record the detaining authority could reasonably feel
satisfied about the necessity for detention of the person concerned
in order to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. In the absence of any provision
specifying the type of material which may or may not be taken into
(9) cri wp 1131.25
consideration by the detaining authority and keeping in view the
purpose the statute is intended to achieve the power vested in the
detaining authority should not be unduly restricted. It is neither
possible nor advisable to catalogue the types of materials which
can form the basis of a detention order under the Act. That will
depend on the facts and situation of a case. Presumably, that is why
the Parliament did not make any provision in the Act in that regard
and left the matter to the discretion of the detaining authority.
However, the facts stated in the materials relied upon should be
true and should have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for
which the order is. passed.
17. From the grounds of detention and the papers enclosed with it
copies of which were served on the detenue it is clear that the
detaining authority based his subjective satisfaction on a series of
contemporaneous incidents in which the detenue was involved. The
satisfaction was not based on a single or stray incident. In the in-
camera statements separate incidents of criminal activities of the
detenue were stated. The assertions are not assailed as untrue nor
can they be said to be irrelevant for the purpose of the order. On
such materials on record it cannot be said that there was no basis
for the detaining authority to feel satisfied that the detenue was
either himself or as a member or leader of a gang habitually
committed or attempted to commit or abetted the commission of
any of the offences stated in Section 2(b-1). Therefore, the
contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenue
was a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) was
vitiated can not be accepted. In our view the detention order under
challenge does not suffer from any infirmity."
( 10 ) cri wp 1131.25
9. In the case in hand, the Petitioner/detenu has not denied
about registration of following crimes against him with various police
stations which are as under:
Sr. Police Station Crime No. and Sections Date Status
No.
1 Renapur 443/2019 u/s. 379 of IPC - Closed
2 Shivajinagar 265/2020 u/s. 379 of IPC 25.08.2020 Subjudice before
ld. Court
3 MIDC Latur 334/2020 u/s. 379 of IPC 30.07.2020 Subjudice before
ld. Court
4 Renapur 645/2020 u/s. 324, 506, 34 of IPC 13.11.2020 Subjudice before
ld. Court
5 Shivajinagar 260/2021 u/s. 122(C) of MCOCA 07.07.2021 Subjudice before
ld. Court
6 Renapur 72/2022 u/s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 24.02.2022 Subjudice before
307, 323, 504, 506, 507 of IPC ld. Court
7 Shivajinagar 169/2023 u/s. 307, 143, 147, 148, 09.04.2023 Subjudice before
149, 504, 506 of IPC ld. Court
8 Shivajinagar 306/2024 u/s. 308(2), 115, 352, 24.07.2024 Investigation is
351(2), 3(5) of BNS Act pending
9 MIDC 715/2024 u/s. 109(1), 118(2), 25.10.2024 Subjudice before
189(1), 189(2) of BNS Act ld. Court
10 Shivajinagar 458/2024 u/s. 303(2), 3(5) of BNS 15.11.2024 Investigation is
Act pending
10. It is a matter of record that investigation in respect of Crime
Nos.306/2024 and 558/2024 is pending and charge-sheet is yet to be filed.
On 03.03.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur passed an
order below Exh. 5 in Sessions Case No.44/2025 arising out of Crime
No.715/2024 registered with MIDC Police Station (Sr.No.9) as stated
above for the offence punishable under Section 109(1), 118 (2), 189(1),
189(2) of the BNS Act and enlarged the petitioner on bail on furnishing
( 11 ) cri wp 1131.25
surety and P.R. bond of Rs. 1 Lac (Rs. 1,00,000/-) with a condition that the
Petitioner (Accused) shall not enter in the Latur city till conclusion of the
trial except to attend the dates of said matter and other matters arising out
of earlier crimes registered against him. The record shows that the
detaining authority recorded in camera statements of witness on
25.04.2025, wherein he stated about knowing the Petitioner since past
eight years. On 07.03.2025, at about 3.00 pm., when he was proceeding
on his motorcycle from Shivaji Chowk to New Renapur Naka and upon
reaching at New Renapur Naka, the present Petitioner and his 2-3
associates stopped his motorcycle and asked him for money and on failure
he issued life threats. So also, the Petitioner/Accused uttered the word
that "don't you know don?" and snatched Rs.200/- from his shirt pocket.
Further in camera statement of the witness-B reveals that, he knows the
Petitioner since last few years and the Petitioner is a hooligan. The people
are frightened from the Petitioner and due to his terror nobody came
forward to lodge a complaint against the petitioner. On 07.03.2025, at
about 5.00 pm when the witness-B was present in his shop at that time the
Petitioner along with 3-4 unknown persons arrived there on two
motorcycles in front of his shop under the state of intoxication and on the
point of koyta (weapon) abused him and snatched approximately
Rs.1200/- which were collected by the said witness after selling vegetables.
( 12 ) cri wp 1131.25
The statements of both the witnesses prima facie show that the Petitioner is
acting or pretending as a don in the society and extracting money by
creating terror and fear in the minds of the people.
11. Needless to say that lastly on 03.03.2025, the Petitioner was
enlarged on bail in Sessions Case No.44/2025 arising out of Crime
No.715/2024 registered with MIDC Police Station with condition that the
Petitioner shall not enter the Latur city till the conclusion of the trial except
to attend the dates of said matter and the matters arising out of earlier
crimes registered against him. It is not in dispute that, the Petitioner
furnished the surety and executed the P.R. bond, however, the Petitioner
entered in Latur city on 07.03.2025 during subsistence of the order / surety
bond dated 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3,
Latur and created chaos by issuing life threats thereby terrorizing as well as
by putting fear in the minds of people. Therefore, all these facts are
sufficient to categorize that, the Petitioner is a "dangerous person" within
the meaning of Section 2 (b-i) of the MPDA Act. Further, the Petitioner has
breached public peace in the society in view of the in camera statements of
the witnesses A and B. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Haridas
Shankar Gaikwad cited (supra) relied on behalf of the Petitioner is not
helpful to his case.
( 13 ) cri wp 1131.25
12. Since the Petitioner has indulged in various criminal activities
affecting public order, immediately after his release on bail in Crime
No.715/2024 (Sessions Case No.44/2025) during the bond period and
tried to disturb peace in the society by issuing life threats to the people by
snatching the money. Therefore, the material available before the
detaining authority was sufficient enough and they have rightly applied
their mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Needless to
say that, the Respondent No.2/detaining authority while considering the
material on record, passed a reasoned order, detaining the Petitioner for a
period of 12 months. Therefore, it does not appear that, the Respondent
No.2/detaining authority has curtailed the personal liberty and
fundamental right of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
13. In view of above discussion, we do not find merit and
substance in the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner to
interfere with the impugned detention order, hence, present petition is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]
mubashir
