Bombay High Court
Kunal Raju Desale vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 21 February, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: S. V. Kotwal, S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:9505-DB
4-WP-5701-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5701 OF 2024
Kunal Raju Desale ... Petitioner
V/s.
Commissioner of Police and Anr. ... Respondents
-------------------
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Anjali Raut, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP, for the State.
--------------------
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
VARSHA S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DEEPAK
GAIKWAD
Digitally signed by
VARSHA DEEPAK
GAIKWAD
Date: 2025.02.28
DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY 2025.
13:23:49 +0530
JUDGMENT:
(PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J)
1. Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.V. Gavand, the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated
15th July 2024, bearing No. TC/PD/DO/MPDA/10/2024 issued under
Section 3 of M.P.D.A Act, 1981 passed by the Respondent No. 1, the
Commissioner of Police, Thane. By a separate order of the same date
i.e. 15th July 2024 the petitioner was directed to be detained in
Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. Along with both these orders, the
Petitioner was served with grounds of detention dated 15 th July 2024.
3. The grounds of detention refers to various offences and the
preventive measures taken in the past against the petitioner. However,
varsha 1 of 6
4-WP-5701-2024.doc
from Paragraph No. 4 onwards the detaining authority has crystallised
the material on which the detention order was passed. The said
material is as follows:-
i) C.R. No. 47 of 2024 registered at Kalwa Police Station
on 14th January 2024 under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,
149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506, 452, 427 of the Indian
Penal Code.
ii) C.R. No. 61 of 2024 registered at Kalwa Police Station
on 15th January 2024 under Sections 506(2) r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
iii) C.R. No. 66 of 2024 registered at Kalwa Police Station
on 16th January 2024 under Sections 307, 386, 387, 109,
120(B). 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code
r/w 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act r/w. 37(1) and 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
iv) In-camera statement of witness 'A' and in-camera
statement of witness 'B'.
In short, the detention order is passed based on three
registered offences and two in-camera statements.
4. C.R. No. 47 of 2024 pertains to the incident dated 13 th
January 2024 which had taken place at around 6.30p.m. in the
evening, when the petitioner and his associates vandalised the house of
the informant's son-in-law, Eknath. The petitioner was carrying a
hammer. He assaulted the complainant's son Sandesh Rajbhar with a
varsha 2 of 6
4-WP-5701-2024.doc
knife. The people in the area were terrified. He was arrested on 14 th
January 2024 and he was granted bail on 15th April 2024.
5. In respect of C.R. No. 61 of 2024, the incident was dated
12th January 2024, at about 9.00 p.m., when the petitioner had given
threats of life to the witnesses, i.e. the complainant's husband and
brother. He was arrested on 28th February 2024 and was granted bail
on 26th April 2024.
6. In respect of C.R. No. 66 of 2024, the incident was dated
15th January 2024. At that time one Rahul had fired at one Sandip
causing fire-arm injury to Sandip's leg. The petitioner was not present
at the spot but according to the investigating agency, the offence was
committed at his behest. His role was revealed subsequently. As he
was already in custody, he was transferred in custody for this offence
and was shown arrested in this offence on 22 nd January 2024. He was
granted bail on 1st June 2024.
7. The in-camera statement of witness 'A' refers to an incident
which had taken place in the 3 rd week of June 2024, when the
petitioner had forcibly taken away Rs.800/- from him by assaulting
witness 'A'. The other in-camera statement of witness- 'B' was in respect
of the incident that had taken place in the 3 rd week of June 2024. In
that incident the petitioner had forcibly taken Rs.12,000/-. The people
in the area had got scared. Both the statements were recorded on 19 th
June 2024 and 20th June 2024, respectively.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following
submissions:
varsha 3 of 6
4-WP-5701-2024.doc
i) In C.R. No. 47 of 2024, they were 13 accused and the
detaining authority had unfairly picked the petitioner to
clamp him with this stringent detention order against him.
ii) Her second submission was that, in respect of C.R.
No. 61 of 2024, the public order was not disturbed. The
petitioner was granted bail in that case.
iii) Her third submission was that, in connection with
C.R. No. 66 of 2024, the petitioner was not present at the
spot. He was in custody and therefore, there was no
connection of the petitioner with the crime and yet this was
held to be a material against the petitioner.
9. According to Ms. Tripathi, in all these matters, the
petitioner had not caused any disturbance of public order. Therefore,
the detention order was not necessary.
10. On the other hand, the learned APP submitted that the
petitioner was released on bail on 1 st June 2024 and within a short
period in the 3rd week of June, there were two instances affecting the
witnesses 'A' and 'B'. This shows his continuous indulgence in these
activities. This also shows his habitual nature of committing the
offences. In particular, the statement of witness 'B' shows that the
public order was greatly disturbed and the people in the locality were
scared.
11. We have considered these submissions. The first incident in
respect of C.R. No. 47 of 2024 clearly shows the petitioner's
involvement as it is described in the grounds of detention. The said act
varsha 4 of 6
4-WP-5701-2024.doc
also shows that the petitioner had vandalised the residence of the
victim with a hammer in his hand. The material mentions that the
people around the area got terrified and they shut their doors. This
activity clearly affected the people's lives in the area, thus affecting
the public order.
The second C.R. No. 61of 2024 mentions that the complainant
knew the detenue and the people in the area were terrified because of
him. He had given serious threats to the complainant's husband and
brother. This affected the public order.
Though in connection with C.R. No. 66 of 2024, he was not
present at the spot but the investigation had revealed that the
petitioner had instigated Rahul to fire at the victim Sandip. The offence
was committed at his behest which again directly affected the people
in the locality. Thus, the Public order was affected adversely.
12. Similarly, statement of witnesses 'A' and 'B' show the
dangerous nature of the petitioner. As rightly submitted by the learned
APP after being released on bail on 1st June 2024 the petitioner had
committed offences against witnesses 'A' and 'B'. Thus, his activities
continued. Those in-camera statements were verified by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Kalwa Zone, Thane and they were found to be
true.
13. Thus, the effect of all these materials against the petitioner
clearly shows that passing of the detention order against the petitioner
was a necessity. We do not find any infirmity in the approach of the
detaining authority and in the grounds of detention mentioned
varsha 5 of 6
4-WP-5701-2024.doc
hereinabove. Therefore, we do not find any reason to set aside the
detention order.
14. With the result, the petition is dismissed.
15. The Rule is discharged.
(S.M. MODAK, J) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J)
varsha 6 of 6
