Suchita Rahul Harpale vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2606 Bom

Bombay High Court

Suchita Rahul Harpale vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 14 February, 2025

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S.M. Modak

2025:BHC-AS:8241-DB
                                                                     :1:                           11 Wp(St)-23270-2024.odt

                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 23270 OF 2024

                             Suchita Rahul Harpale
                             (wife of the detenu)
                             Age 36 years
                             R/o. MU Post, Phursungi
                             Chandwadi Taluka, Haveli Jilha,
                             Near Juna Canol, Fursungi, Pune
                             Maharashtra 412 308
                             (Detenu is presently detained at
                             Akola Central Prison, Akola)                                .....Petitioner

                                             Versus

                             1. Commissioner Of Police, Pune
                                Pune City,

                             2. The State of Maharashtra
                                through the Secretary Home
                                Department (Spl)
                                Mantralaya, Mumbai

                             3. The Superintendent
                                Akola Central Prison,
                                Akola.                                                   .....Respondents
                                                                -----
                             Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Anjali Raut - Advocate for the Petitioner.
                             Mr. S. V. Gavand - APP for the Respondent-State.
                                                                -----
                                                           CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                                       S.M. MODAK, JJ.

                                                                 DATE        : 14th FEBRUARY 2025


                             JUDGMENT :

(Per SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

1. This is a petition filed by the wife of the detenu challenging the

detention order bearing no. CRIME PCB/DET/HADAPSAR/

HARPALE/653/2024, dated 19.08.2024. Vide the impugned order, the

SEEMA by SEEMA

1 of 7 KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

Seema YELKAR 2025.02.20 19:05:10 +0530

:2: 11 Wp(St)-23270-2024.odt

Petitioner's husband was directed to be detained under the Maharashtra

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug

Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons

engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981. On the

same date, by a separate committal order, the Petitioner's husband was

directed to be detained in the Akola Central Prison. Alongwith the

detention order and the committal order, the Petitioner's husband was

served with the grounds of detention dated 19.08.2024.

2. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Tripathi for the Petitioner-the wife of

the detenu and learned APP Shri Gavand for the Respondent-State.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied only on one ground to

challenge the said order of the detention. Her only contention is that the

detaining authority has stated in paragraph no. 4 that he had considered

only one offence mentioned below paragraph no. 5.1 and two in-camera

statements mentioned in paragraph nos. 6.1 and 6.2 to issue the detention

order. However, paragraph nos. 3.1 and 3.2 gives his past history. This

clearly means that he was not relying on that history to pass the detention

order, but in paragraph no. 8, he has again differed from his statement

and has stated that he had mentioned the offences and preventive action,

in paragraph nos. 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the grounds of detention to show that

the detenu was a habitual criminal involved in continuous criminal

activities. It is submitted that the contradictory stand taken by

2 of 7 Seema

:3: 11 Wp(St)-23270-2024.odt

the detaining authority shows non application of mind. It also deprived

the Petitioner's husband from making an effective representation at the

earliest. Based on this contradictory stand, the subjective satisfaction

expressed by the detaining authority in passing the detention order is

vitiated.

4. The learned APP, on the other hand, supported the detention order.

He submitted that the past history was mentioned only to show his

activities, but that history is not the basis of the subjective satisfaction of

the detaining authority, and it is specifically based only on the grounds

mentioned in paragraph no. 5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 of the ground of the

detention.

5. We have considered this submission. The grounds of detention in

paragraph no. 3.1 refers to two offences registered at Hadapsar Police

Station as follows :

(i) C.R. No. 185 of 2015 registered under Sections 387, 506, 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act and

under Sections 142, 37 (1)(3) read with 135 of the Maharashtra

Police Act. It was dated 22.04.2015, and he was arrested on

18.05.2015.

(ii) C.R. No. 751 of 2021 under Sections 385, 387, 389, 323, 504 506,

464, 465, 468, 471, 170, 171 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was dated 15.09.2021, and he was arrested on 16.09.2021.

                                                                                   3 of 7
Seema





                                     :4:                         11 Wp(St)-23270-2024.odt

Both these cases were pending before the Court.

6. In paragraph no. 3.2 of the grounds, there is a reference to Chapter

Case No. 196 of 2021 of the Hadapsar Police Station under Section 110

(e)(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bond was for a period of two

years.

In paragraph no. 4, it has been specifically stated that he has

considered only the offence mentioned in paragraph no. 5.1 and two in-

camera statements mentioned in paragraph nos. 6.1 and 6.2 to issue the

detention order.

7. In paragraph no. 5.1, there is a reference to C.R. No. 1053 of 2024

of Hadapsar Police Station dated 29.06.2024, registered under Sections

384, 385, 170, 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was

arrested on 29.06.2024, and he was granted bail on 09.07.2024. A

charge-sheet was filed on 16.08.2024. It was in respect of the incident

which had taken place on 28.06.2024 in the night and around 05.00 a.m

in the next morning. It was in respect of extorting an amount of Rs. 2.5

lakhs from the informant for allowing his tanker to pass. It is a case of the

informant that the detenu told him that, he had stopped the tanker

because the informant was taking away furnace oil in that tanker.

8. In-camera statements mentioned in paragraph no. 6.1 and 6.2 are

of the witnesses 'A' and 'B' respectively. Those are in respect of the

incidents dated 20.06.2024 and 25.06.2024. Witness 'A' has stated that the 4 of 7 Seema

:5: 11 Wp(St)-23270-2024.odt

detenu had threatened him that he would implicate the witness 'A' in false

cases by the keeping some goods like Gutkha in his vehicle. Witness 'B'

has stated that the detenu had threatened him that unless he paid the

money, the detenu would spread the news that the witness 'B' was

indulging in selling stolen scrap material.

These are the main allegations against the detenu.

9. However, significantly in para no. 8, it is mentioned that :-

"I have mentioned the offences and preventive action taken in

para 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the grounds of detention to show that

you are habitual criminal involved in continuous criminal

activities. Accordingly I had relied upon the material mentioned

in Para 5.1 and 6.1, 6.2 of the grounds of detention to arrive at

my subjective satisfaction that you are a Dangerous Person as

defined in Para 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act and your criminal

activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public order".

It clearly mentions that, to reach his subjective satisfaction

that the detenu was habitual criminal, he has relied on the offence and

the preventive action mentioned in paragraph nos. 3.1 and 3.2 of the

grounds of the detention to show that the detenu was a habitual criminal.

The main ingredient of Section 2 (b-1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of

Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,

Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged 5 of 7 Seema

:6: 11 Wp(St)-23270-2024.odt

in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 is that the person is a

Dangerous person who 'habitually' commits the offence mentioned therein

(emphasis supplied).

Section 2(b-1) reads thus:-

"'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."

10. Therefore, the main ingredient of Section 2(b-1) was about habitual

commission of the offences. For that purpose, the detaining authority has

relied on the earlier offence and preventive action mentioned in

paragraph nos. 3, 3.1 and 3.2. On the other hand, he has stated that he

has relied only on the material mentioned in paragraph nos. 5.1, 6.1 and

6.2. Thus, it is a contradictory stand taken by the Detaining authority. The

Detention order could be passed only when the detenue was shown to

have habitually committed those offences. Therefore, the detaining

authority has clearly relied on paragraph nos. 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the

grounds of detention, but he has taken a stand that he was passing the

detention order on the other material and not on the material in

paragraph nos. 3, 3.1 and 3.2. It is not only a contradictory stand but has 6 of 7 Seema

:7: 11 Wp(St)-23270-2024.odt

given rise to confusion and shows non application of mind. It also

deprives the detenu from making an effective representation at the

earliest.

11. Based on this discussion, it is quite clear that impugned detention

order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

(i) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'b', which reads

thus:-

"(b) The order of Detention bearing No. CRIME PCB/ DET/HADAPSAR/HARPALE/653/2024, dated 19.08.2024 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 detenu Rahul Machchindra Harpale be ordered for release forthwith".

(ii) The Petitioner's husband-detenu shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

(iii)     The Writ Petition is disposed of.




(S.M. MODAK, J.)                              (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)




                                                                                     7 of 7
Seema