Bombay High Court
Tausif Tarik Khan vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 10 January, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:1940-DB
Gokhale 1 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 23707 OF 2024
Tausif Tarik Khan ..Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai
and others. ..Respondents
__________
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi for Petitioner.
Smt. Mankuwar M. Deshmukh, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 10 JANUARY 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated
20.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 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 (for short 'MPDA Act'), and
confirmed by the State of Maharashtra, bearing
D.O.No.12/PCB/DP/ZONE-VII/2024, dated 20.09.2024. By a
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2025.01.16
14:15:18
+0530
2 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
separate committal order, the detenue was directed to be detained
initially at Thane Central Prison till he was produced before the
Advisory Board and then to Nashik Road Central prison, Nashik.
The detenue was served with the grounds of detention.
2. The Affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra
mentions further dates. The order was approved by the
Government on 30.09.2024. The petitioner was actually put under
detention on 20.09.2024. A reference was made to the Advisory
Board on 30.09.2024. The date of the opinion of the Advisory
board is 25.10.2024 and the order was confirmed on 07.11.2024.
3. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner.
In paragraph-4 the previous history was mentioned. It was
mentioned in paragraph-4 of the grounds that there were six
registered offences against the petitioner. They were C.R.No.459 of
2019 at Ghatkopar police station, C.R.No.323 of 2020 at
Ghatkopar police station, C.R.No.496 of 2021 at Ghatkopar police
station, C.R.No.1171 of 2022 at Powai police station, C.R.No.349
of 2023 at Ghatkopar police station and Spl. LAC No.218 of 2023
3 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
at Ghatkopar police station. They were registered between
24.07.2019 to 08.07.2023. These offences were under sections
307, 387 and 397 of the I.PC., as well as, under section 8(c), 20
and 29 of the NDPS Act. Apart from these registered offences,
these preventive actions were taken against the petitioner right
from the year 2008 upto 2024 under section 110(e) of the Cr.p.c.
and externment proceedings under section 56(1)(a) and U/s.56(1)
(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
4. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 describes that the effect of this
past history indicated that he was a dangerous desperado of
violent character, having taken to the life of a criminal for the sake
of easy money.
5. Further, importantly, in paragraph-7 it was specifically
mentioned as follows:
"I hereby state that above para nos. 4 to 6 are
merely preamble/introduction which is your past
criminal history."
6. The grounds of detention were mentioned from
paragraph-8 onwards. There was a list of registered offences as
4 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
follows:
i) C.R.No.359 of 2924 registered with Ghatkopar
police station dated 25.04.2024, mainly U/s.387
of the I.P.C.
ii) C.R.No.439 of 2024 registered with Ghatkopar
police station dated 14.05.2024, mainly U/s.392
of the I.P.C.
Paragraph-8(a) and 8(b) describes the material related
to the registered offences under the Maharashtra Police Act.
Paragraph-8(c)(i) mentions in-camera statement of
Witness 'A' recorded on 06.08.2024. It was in respect of an incident
which had occurred in the last week of June 2024 at about
11:00p.m.; in which, the petitioner had removed Rs.1200/-
forcibly from that witness.
Paragraph-8(c)(ii) mentions in-camera statement of
witness 'B' recorded on 08.08.2024. It was in respect of an incident
which had taken place in the third week of July 2024 at around
10:30p.m.; in which, the petitioner had removed Rs.1300/- from
that witness forcibly.
5 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
Paragraph-9 mentions that, from these facts, the
Respondent No.1 was satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous
person as per Section 2(b-1) of the MPID Act.
Paragraph-10 mentions that, after carefully going
through the material placed before the Respondent No.1 in
paragraph-8, he was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner was
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made two submissions
before us. The first submission was that the Respondent No.1 had
mentioned the previous history of the petitioner. The documents
pertaining to that history were not given and the Respondent No.1
could not have relied on that material in passing the said order.
The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
was that the petitioner was given English translation of the
original Marathi documents because the petitioner had studied
upto 5th standard in English medium. She submitted that, there is
variance in the original Marathi documents and their English
transaction; as far as, the verification recorded under in-camera
6 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
statements are concerned.
8. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the
grounds of detention order clearly mention that past history was
merely mentioned as 'preamble/introduction' but it was not the
basis on which the detention order was passed. The material on
which the detention order was passed is reflected only in
paragraph-8 onwards. She submitted that, therefore, the first
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no
substance.
9. Learned APP further submitted that, there is nothing
wrong with the English transaction of the Marathi verification
recorded below the in-camera statements. Though, there appears
to be a typographical error in the verification part, but that would
not go to the root of the matter; as the statement itself shows the
correct date and, therefore, the petitioner was not misled or could
not be said to be confused in any manner because of that
typographical error.
10. We have considered these submissions. As far as the first
7 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
submission is concerned, we have carefully perused the grounds of
detention. Upto paragraph-7, the past criminal history of the
petitioner is mentioned. In paragraph-7, he has clearly stated that
all this history was mentioned only as preamble/introduction. The
grounds, on which the detention order was passed, were
mentioned from paragraph-8 onwards. Paragraph-9 records
subjective satisfaction of the Respondent No.1 and he has
mentioned that, from these facts, he had reached his satisfaction.
Thus, it is quite clear that the Respondent No.1 had referred to the
activities mentioned only in paragraph-8 as the basis for passing
the order. It is further clarified in paragraph-10 which reads thus:
"After carefully going through the material placed
before me in paragraph no.8, I am subjectively
satisfied that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. Para numbers 8(a)
8(b) and 8(c) are elucidating grounds of detention.
Hence, said paragraphs of the grounds are relied upon
by me for issuing the present order of detention
against you."
11. Even in the subsequent paragraphs there is no reference
to the past history mentioned in the preamble of the grounds of
detention. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of
8 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent No.1
had relied on the past history to arrive at his subjective satisfaction
without giving any particulars and documents in respect of that
history; or that the Respondent No.1 had relied on stale instances.
Therefore, we do not find any force in the first submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
12. As far as the second submission is concerned, we have
perused the English translation of the verification below the in-
camera statements. The original Marathi 'in-camera statement' of
witness 'A' is at page No.217 of this petition. The verification is
written below that statement. The heading of that 'in-camera
statement' of witness 'A' itself mentions the date 06.08.2024. The
verification was recorded on 16.08.2024 by A.C.P. Ghatkopar. The
English transaction provided to the petitioner is at page No.220.
Here again, the heading of the 'in-camera statement' of witness 'A'
show the date 06.08.2024. However, the verification below that
statement mentions that, the above statement of witness 'A'
recorded on 04.06.2024 was read out in Marathi and was
explained to the witness. In this portion, the date is wrong
9 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
because, in-camera statement was recorded on 06.08.2024 and
this portion of the translated verification mentions that the
statement was recorded on 04.06.2024. Though, it is quite clear
that it is a typographical error, however, it has not misled the
petitioner at all because heading of the in-camera statement of
witness 'A' clearly mentions the date of that statement was
06.08.2024. The verification in respect of the said statement which
was recorded by A.C.P. Ghatkopar was on 16.08.2024. Therefore, it
has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner and it has not
affected his right to make effective representation before the
authorities.
13. Similar error occurs in the English translation of the
verification below 'in-camera statement' of witness 'B'. The original
Marathi 'in-camera statement' of witness 'B' was recorded on
08.08.2024. In the verification part also the same date is reflected.
It was verified on 16.08.2024 by A.C.P. Ghatkopar. The heading of
the English translation of the 'in-camera statement' of witness 'B'
shows the correct date of recording of statement as 08.08.2024.
However, in the English translation of the verification part
10 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
mentions that the statement was recorded on 08.06.2024. Again,
this is an error that has occurred in the English translation of the
verification part of the said 'in-camera statement' of witness 'B'.
The verification was carried out and recorded by ACP, Ghatkopar
on 16.08.2024. Therefore, error in mentioning the date of the 'in-
camera statement' in verification does not cause any prejudice to
the petitioner, because, heading of the English translated in-
camera statement of witness 'B' shows the correct date as
08.08.2024. Therefore, again, no prejudice is caused to the
petitioner in making effective representation before the
authorities.
14. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance
in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the grounds of detention, it is quite clear that the
Respondent No.1 has applied his mind and has reached the
subjective satisfaction recording necessity of detaining the
petitioner based on the material before him, as mentioned earlier.
15. In view of this fact, we do not find any substance in the
11 of 11 905-wp-st-23707-24 (J)
petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The Rule is
discharged.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
