Bombay High Court
Ajendrakumar @ Ajay S/O Sukhdev Koche vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary ... on 9 July, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:6471-DB
1 crwp.368.25-J.odt
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 368 OF 2025
Ajendrakumar @ Ajay s/o. Sukhdev Koche,
Aged - 42 Years, Occ. : Labour,
R/o. Devsarra, Tahsil - Tumsar,
Dist. Bhandara, Maharashtra - 441904,
Presently detained at
Bhandara District Prison,
Tah. & Distt. Bhandara (M.S.) ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department (Special),
Mantralaya, Mumbai (M.S.).
2. District Magistrate/Collector, Bhandara,
District - Bhandara, Maharashtra.
3. Superintendent,
Bhandara District Prison,
District - Bhandara, Maharashtra.
4. Superintendent of Police,
District - Bhandara, Maharashtra.
5. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Tahsil- Tumsar, District Bhandara (M.S.),
6. Assistant Police Inspector,
Police Station - Sihora,
Tahsil - Tumsar, District Bhandara (M.S.). ... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. P. Lingayat, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. I. J. Damle, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.06.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09.07.2025
2 crwp.368.25-J.odt
JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By way of this writ petition, the legality and propriety of order
of detention dated 09.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, Bhandara against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of 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,
(hereinafter referred to as "MPDAAct") is impugned.
3. The respondent/detaining authority has arrived at subjective
satisfaction to hold the petitioner as 'Bootlegger' on the foundation of
particulars of the offences stated hereinbelow:-
(i) Crime No.253/2023 dated 16.11.2023 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 65(f), (b), (c), (d), (e) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949.
(ii) Crime No.81/2024 dated 17.03.2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 65(f), (e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act,
1949.
3 crwp.368.25-J.odt
(iii) Crime No.188/2024 dated 14.08.2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 85(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act,
1949.
(iv) Crime No.200/2024 dated 31.08.2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
(v) Crime No.230/2024 dated 27.09.2024 for the offence punishable under
Section 65(f), (e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
4. Detenu's business of selling illicit liquor is proposed to disturb
peace and order of the nearby village, therefore, complaints of the following
indictable crimes were lodged at the police station.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Lingayat submits that,
impugned order dated 09.12.2024 is arbitrary, illegal, belated on its face
and passed without application of mind as the material pitted against the
petitioner is too scanty and stale for warranting such drastic action under
the MPDA Act. He further submitted that, the impugned order under
challenge is passed by respondent No.2 without taking into consideration
that the prior proposal seeking externment of petitioner-detenue under
Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 on the same set of
allegation and documents was not approved by the authority.
6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel on behalf of the
petitioner/detenu that, the order passed by the respondent No.2 is prima
4 crwp.368.25-J.odt
facie illegal as there are no specific findings recorded by the respondent
No.2 in the order by which his detention can be justified. The detaining
authority has considered the Chemical Analyzers Report of the Forensic
Science Leboratory alongwith query opinion of District Civil Surgeon of
District General Hospital, Bhandara, who opined that, there is no significant
effect of 0 to 50 Mg% of ethyl alcohol on human health. Therefore, on this
count also the said impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Damle, vehemently opposed the arguments
made by the petitioner placing reliance upon the affidavit-in-reply. He
stated that the in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' have been
recorded by Police Inspector and verified by respondent No. 5, who is a
Gazetted Officer and after finding out the truthfulness of these secret
complaints satisfied himself that no person is coming forward to move
complaint due to fear of detenu. The detaining authority after being
subjectively satisfied, furnished copies of the said statements to the detenu
except names and particulars of identification of the witnesses which are
kept secret, in public interest for which the detaining authority have
privilege.
8. Learned A.P.P further supplied emphasis on the argument that
the detaining authority wrongly relied on the statements of witnesses "A" &
"B" which do not show any incident of having affected the public order by
the detune. It is submitted that the statements of confidential witnesses
5 crwp.368.25-J.odt
along with all documents were supplied to the detenu. The witnesses "A"
and "B" deposed against the activities of the detenu committed against
them. The Senior Police Officer has verified their statements and the same
were carefully perused by the detaining authority. From this, it is seen that,
he has become notorious criminal with no fear of law and it is highly
probable that he could commit offences again and again.
9. Heard both the learned Counsel for the parties.
10. The grounds raised by the petitioner are about consideration of
extraneous material while passing the detention order and there is no
verification of the confidential statements.
11. We have gone through the order passed by the detaining
authority. Though five offences are committed by the petitioner during the
period of 2023 to 2024, one offence i.e. Crime No.230/2024 registered for
the offence punishable under Section 65(f)(e) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949 is considered for passing the detention order along
with two statements of confidential witnesses. The petitioner is labelled as
a bootlegger. While passing the detention order, the Authority has
considered the C.A. Report of the earlier offences i.e. in Crime No.200/2024
and 230/2024.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nenavath Bujji etc. Vs.
6 crwp.368.25-J.odt
State of Telangana and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367 wherein
it is held as under :
"37. In the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and
Others (2023) 9 SCC 587, a two-Judge Bench of this Court was
confronted with almost an identical situation with which we
are dealing with. In Ameena Begum (supra) this Court while
considering whether there was proper application of mind to
all the relevant circumstances or whether consideration of
extraneous factors had vitiated the order of detention, observed
thus:
"......53. Although the Commissioner sought to project
that he ordered detention based on the said 5 (five) FIRs,
indication of the past offences allegedly committed by the
detenu in the detention order having influenced his
thought process is clear. With the quashing of the order of
detention dated 4-3-2021 by the High Court and such
direction having attained finality, it defies logic why the
Commissioner embarked on an elaborate narration of past
offences, which are not relevant to the grounds of the
present order of detention. This is exactly what this Court
in Khaja Bilal Ahmed [Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of
Telangana, (2020) 13 SCC 632 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 629]
deprecated. Also, as noted above, this Court in Shibban
Lal Saksena [Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of U.P., (1953)
2 SCC 617 : AIR 1954 SC 179] held that such an order
would be a bad order, the reason being that it could not
be said in what manner and to what extent the valid and
invalid grounds operated on the mind of the authority
concerned and contributed to his subjective satisfaction
forming the basis of the order."
38. .....If the pending cases were not considered for passing the
order of detention, it defies logic as to why they were referred
to in the first place in the order of detention. The purpose of
the Telangana Offenders Act, 1986 is to prevent any person
from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. For this purpose, Section 3 prescribes that the
detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be
detained is likely to indulge in illegal activities in the future
7 crwp.368.25-J.odt
and act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. The satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining
authority must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. It
must be arrived at on the basis of relevant material; material
which is not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of the
detaining authority. The order of detention may refer to the
previous criminal antecedents only if they have a direct nexus
or link with the immediate need to detain an individual. If the
previous criminal activities of the appellant could indicate his
tendency or inclination to act in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order, then it may have a bearing on the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. However, in
the absence of a clear indication of a causal connection, a mere
reference to the pending criminal cases cannot account for the
requirements of Section 3. It is not open to the detaining
authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as the
basis of an order of detention. Such stale material will have no
bearing on the probability of the detenu engaging in prejudicial
activities in the future."
13. It appears that the C. A. Report of the earlier offence is
considered which amounts to consideration of extraneous material. As per
the above said discussion it vitiates the order.
14. On perusal of the statements, it appears that the statements are
identical, which are mentioned in the order. But on going through the
original statements, it appears that different incidents are mentioned by
both the witnesses. Though the statement of witness 'A' is recorded on
12.09.2024, the incidents of 23.08.2023 and 07.09.2024 are mentioned.
On perusal of the original statements, it appears that it is not verified by
anyone. Sub-Divisional Police Officer has signed it stating as 'verified'. The
Authority has also seen it, but has not taken any pain to see whether it is
8 crwp.368.25-J.odt
verified by any other person. Therefore, though the statements are
considered, it is of no use. As the extraneous material is considered and the
statements are not even verified and mechanically seen by the Authority, a
casual approach of the Authority is proved while passing the detention
order. It is the question of liberty of a person. The Authority has considered
the extraneous material viz. the C.A. Report in earlier offences and without
verifying the statements, has passed the detention order. As such, the same
is required to be quashed and set aside.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order :
i] The petition is allowed.
ii] We hereby quash and set aside the detention order dated
09.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order of
confirmation dated 19.12.2024 passed by the respondent
No.1.
iii] The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in
any other crime.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/07/2025 18:57:28
