Bombay High Court
Dinesh Mukesh Karmavat vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 28 February, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:10256-DB
1/8 08-WP-ST-24005-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.24005 OF 2024
Dinesh Mukesh Karmavat .... Petitioner
versus
Commissioner of Police Pune,
Pune City & Ors. .... Respondents
.......
• Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Anjali Raut, Advocate for Petitioner.
• Mr. J. P. Yagnik, 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 Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order
bearing OW.NO./CRIME PCB/DET/HADAPSAR/KARMAVAT/719/
2024 dated 06/09/2024 issued by the Respondent No.1 i.e. the
MANUSHREE Commissioner of Police Pune, Pune City, under of the
NESARIKAR
MANUSHREE Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates,
Nesarikar
2/8 08-WP-ST-24005-24.odt
Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of
Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short 'MPDA Act'). Vide
the committal order, the Petitioner was directed to be detained
at Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur. Along with the committal
order, the Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention
dated 06/09/2024.
3. The grounds of detention mentioned four offences u/s
65 (d), (e), (f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, registered at
Hadapsar police station between April 2017 to March 2019.
Paragraph No.3.2 of the grounds of detention mention Chapter
Case No.8/2019 dated 27/03/2019, where he was directed to
execute a bond of Rs.15,000/-. However, the detention order is
passed on the material mentioned in paragraph No.5 of grounds
of detention. The detention order is based on two registered
offences at Hadapsar police station i.e. C.R.No.215/2024 u/s
65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act dated 02/02/2024 and
C.R.No.254/2024 under section 65(e) of Maharashtra
Prohibition Act dated 08/02/2024.
3/8 08-WP-ST-24005-24.odt
4. C.R.No.215/2024 pertains to the incident dated
01/02/2024 when the police party confronted the Petitioner at
around 05.00 p.m. for selling country-made liquor. He was
found in possession of 50 liters country-made liquor.
5. C.R. No.254/2024 pertains to the incident dated
07/02/2024, when the Petitioner was found in possession of 10
liters of country-made liquor. In both these offences, he was
arrested and then released on bail. Besides these two registered
offences, there are two 'in-camera' statements of witness 'A' and
'B'. They pertain to the incidents dated 15/07/2024 and
07/07/2024 respectively. On both these occasions, the Petitioner
had threatened those witnesses, while he was selling country-
made liquor.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner however has not
referred to the material against the Petitioner. She submitted
that, the only ground of challenging the detention order is about
the delay in considering his representation. The specific ground
which the Petitioner has taken is ground (c), which reads thus :
4/8 08-WP-ST-24005-24.odt
"(c) The Petitioner says and submits that representation
of the dated 18.11.2024, was sent to the
Superintendent Kolhapur Central Prison at Kolhapur
for further sending it to the State Government for
expeditious consideration, revoke and
communication. The petitioner says and submits that
so far, no communication has been received from the
State Government as regards to the consideration of
the said representation by the State Government, the
State Government has delayed in considering the
representation of the detenu expeditiously and
diligently and communicating the result to the
detenu. All respective authorities are called upon to
explain the delay, if any, occurred from the date of
representation till today to the satisfaction of this
Hon'ble Court, failing which the continued detention
will be held as illegal and bad in law, liable to be
quashed and set aside."
7. The learned APP submitted that the representation was
considered and decided by the authorities expeditiously and
there was no delay in considering the representation and
therefore, the order is not liable to be set aside.
5/8 08-WP-ST-24005-24.odt
8. We have considered these submissions. The Writ
Petition is filed on 19/11/2024. The grounds however mention
that the representation of the Petitioner dated 18/11/2024 was
sent to the Superintendent of Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur.
Therefore, it was premature to assume on 19/11/2024 itself that
there was delay is considering the representation. However, at
the time of hearing of this Petition, it was noticed that, there
indeed was delay in considering the representation. Therefore, it
is important to see the movement of this representation.
9. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Kolhapur
Central Prison, Kolhapur mentions that the representation of the
detenu dated 18/11/2024 was received in his office on
21/11/2024 and on the same day it was forwarded to the
Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department
(Special), Government of Maharashtra and Advisory Board,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
10. There is affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Government
of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. He
6/8 08-WP-ST-24005-24.odt
has stated in paragraph No.2 of his affidavit that the
representation of the Petitioner dated 21/11/2024 was received
by desk special 3-B, on 22/11/2024 by email through Kolhapur
Central Prison, Kolhapur, vide their letter dated 21/11/2024
along with detentu's Advocate's letter dated 18/11/2024.
Therefore, remarks were called for from the detaining authority,
i.e. the Commissioner of Police, Pune City on 22/11/2024 by the
Special Branch-3B Desk. Importantly, the affidavit further
mentions that the remarks of the detaining authority were
received on 11/12/2024 vide the letter dated 23/11/2024. This
particular period is important because this affidavit does not
explain as to what happened from 23/11/2024 to 11/12/2024.
11. In this context, the affidavit of detaining authority in
paragraph No.9 mentions that the representation of the detenue
was received by the detaining authority on 22/11/2024 and
accordingly para-wise reply was prepared and after finalization
on 23/11/2024, it was sent to the State Government for further
consideration of representation of the Petitioner.
7/8 08-WP-ST-24005-24.odt
12. Thus, it is quite clear that the detaining authority had
immediately prepared para-wise reply on 23/11/2024. Till that
point, there was no delay in treating the representation
expeditiously. However, thereafter from 23/11/2024 to
11/12/2024, there is absolutely no explanation from any of the
authorities as to what happened to the representation during
that period. In the entire affidavit filed by all the authorities, this
particular period is completely overlooked. Thus, there is
absolutely no explanation as to how the representation was
treated between 23/11/2024 to 11/12/2024. Thus, this
particular part remains unexplained and hence there is an
unexplained delay in considering the representation of the
detenu. It is duty of the authorities to consider the
representation of the detenu at the earliest and if for some
reason if there is some delay because of the valid reasons, that
delay can be accepted. In this case, there is absolutely no
explanation offered by any of the authorities for the delay
between 23/11/2024 to 11/12/2024 as to what happened to
the representation. Thus, the delay has remained unexplained.
Therefore, the detenu's valuable right under Article 22(5) of the
8/8 08-WP-ST-24005-24.odt
Constitution of India is affected. In this view of the matter, the
detention order is liable to be set aside.
13. Hence the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(b), which reads thus:
"(b) The order of Detention bearing
No.CRIME/PCB/DET/HADAPSAR/KARM
AVAT/719/2024 dated 06.09.2024 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 be ordered for release forthwith".
(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.)
