Bombay High Court
Suraj @Sonya @ Shakti Mahadev Bansode vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 28 February, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:10254-DB
1/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6163 OF 2024
Suraj @ Sonya @ Shakti Mahadev Bansode .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. P. C. Mohite i/b. Mr. Sham Chavan and Ms. Vaishali Mane,
Advocate for Petitioner.
• Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 28th FEBRUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. Heard Mr. P. C. Mohite, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order
dated 07/03/2024 bearing No.O.W.NO./CRIME PCB/DET/
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR BANSODE/259/2024 passed by the Respondent No.3, i.e. the
Date: 2025.03.05 Commissioner of Police, Pune City, under the Maharashtra
Nesarikar
2/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
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 'MPDA Act').
3. The Petitioner was directed to be detained in Akola
Prison. The Petitioner was served with grounds of detention on
07/03/2024. From the record it appears that the detention
order, committal order and the grounds of detention could not
be served on the Petitioner on 07/03/2024, but they were
actually served on 15/03/2024, when he was arrested. Till that
time, he was absconding. The detaining authority i.e. the
Commissioner of Police, Pune City, who is the Respondent No.3
and the sponsoring authority i.e. the Senior Inspector of Police,
Faraskhana Police Station, Pune, have filed their affidavits. The
Senior Police Inspector attached to Faraskhana police station in
his affidavit has stated about efforts taken by them to serve the
copy of detention order and to arrest the detenu and to show
that he was absconding.
3/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
4. The grounds of detention mentioned various materials
against the Petitioner. In paragraph No.3 there is a reference to
C.R. No.110/2018 registered at Samarth police station on
15/06/2018 u/s 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and u/s 37 (1)(3) r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, u/s 4(25) of the Arms Act and u/s 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act. The other registered offence was
C.R.No.148/2023 registered at Faraskhana police station u/s
326, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It was registered on
13/08/2023. In paragraph Nos.3.2, other preventive actions are
mentioned. The first one is Chapter Case No.37/2022 dated
18/08/2022 u/s 110(g) of Cr.P.C. and other action in Chapter
Case No.5/2023 u/s 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act
dated 05/02/2023. The detaining authority, i.e. the Respondent
No.3 has specifically stated in paragraph No.3 that it was
clarified that detention order was not based on the preventive
actions. These preventive actions were mentioned only to
highlight the detenu's desperate tendencies to commit violent
crimes. In paragraph No.3.1 it was specifically clarified that the
past offences were not relied upon while passing the order of
4/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
detention, but only were referred to show that he had been
habitually committing serious offences. After stating this in clear
terms, the detaining authority has described the material on
which the detention order was based.
5. In paragraph No.4 he has further reiterated his stand
by stating that he had considered two offences mentioned at
paragraph Nos.5.1, 5.2 and two in-camera statements
mentioned at paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 to issue the detention
order. Those two registered offences are C.R.No.10/2024 at
Faraskhana police station u/s 324, 323, 352, 504 of the Indian
Penal Code and u/s 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and
C.R.No.24/2024 u/s 4(25) of the Arms Act and u/s 37(1)(135)
of the Maharashtra Police Act and u/s 7 of Criminal Law
Amendment Act.
6. In C.R. No.10/2024 the allegations are that the detenu
was quarreling and fighting with his wife on 16/01/2024. The
informant in that offence tried to intervene. At that time, the
detenue assaulted him on his head with a vehicle key.
5/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
7. In C.R. No.24/2024 there is reference to the incident
dated 27/01/2024. In the night at around 01.50 a.m. the
Petitioner was seen moving around in Mangalwar Peth area with
a sharp weapon. The weapon was having length of 27 cms. The
police confronted him and arrested him.
8. There are two in-camera statements of witness 'A' and
'B'. The incidents are dated 11/01/2024 and 20/01/2024
respectively. According to the witness 'A' the detenu had entered
his office and had threatened him with a sword. The witness 'B'
has referred to the incident when the detenu removed
Rs.2,700/- from his pocket in the presence of people who had
got frightened.
9. Thus, these two registered offences and two in-camera
statements were the basis of passing of the order.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner canvassed only one
ground before us. He submitted that the detention order is
6/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
based only on the C.R.No.10/2024 and C.R.No.24/2024 at
Faraskhana police station and two in-camera statement as is
clearly mentioned in the order. However, in paragraph No.8
there is clear reference to the earlier offences and preventive
action. This is directly contrary to the detaining authority's
stand. It has created confusion and has affected right of the
detenue to make earliest effective representation. He further
submitted that this also shows non-application of mind as the
detaining authority was not clear in his mind as to what was the
actual material on which the detention order was passed.
11. Learned APP opposed these submissions. According to
her, the earlier offence and the preventive action were
mentioned only to show his tendency to commit offences. It did
not affect subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
12. We are unable to accept the submissions of learned APP.
The detaining authority in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 has clearly
stated that the detention order was not based on the earlier
offences mentioned in paragraph Nos.3.1 i.e. C.R. No.110/2018
registered at Samarth police station and C.R.No.148/2023
7/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
registered at Faraskhana police station. Further in paragraph
No.3.2 he had again clarified that earlier preventive actions i.e.
the Chapter Case No.37/2022 and the notice with reference to
section 59(1) of Maharashtra Police Act were not the basis on
which the detention was order passed. In spite of this; in
paragraph No.8, the detaining authority has stated that he had
mentioned offence and preventive action taken in paragraph
No.3, 3.1 and 3.2 in the ground of detention to show that he
was habitually involving in criminal activities. This clearly was
the basis for reaching his subjective satisfaction about the
Petitioner's habitual nature of committing this offence. The main
ingredient of section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act is about
'habituality' of the proposed detenu. The said section reads
thus:
"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
8/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act,
1959; "
13. Therefore, if the detaining authority has relied on the
material at paragraph No.3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the grounds of
detention to reach his subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner
was habitual in committing this offence; it is directly contrary to
his earlier averment in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 that the detention
order was not based on the earlier material. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in submitting that this
contrary stand has created confusion and has affected the
detenu's right to make an earliest representation challenging the
detention order.
14. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not
sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
15. Hence the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a), which reads thus:
9/9 03-WP-6163-24.odt
"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
quash and set aside Detention Order
bearing NO.PCB/DET/FARASKHANA/
BANSODE/259/2024 dated:-07th March,
2024 passed by the Respondent no.3 and
confirmed by the Respondent no.2 vide its
order dated:-08th May, 2024."
(ii) The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
(iii) The Petition is disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
