Bombay High Court
Narayan Vasudev Ghumare vs The District Magistrate And Others on 17 June, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:15622-DB
wp-582-2025-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.582 OF 2025
Narayan Vasudev Ghumare
Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Pargaon Siras, Tq. And Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Magistrate, Beed.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through, The Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. The Superintendent,
Harsul Jail, Chh. Sambhajinagar. .. Respondents
...
Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 17 JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. J. Salunke for the petitioner and
learned APP Mr. S. A. Gaikwad for respondents - State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally
with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
wp-582-2025-J.odt
3. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 09.01.2024
bearing No.2024/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-02 passed by respondent
No.1 as well as the approval order dated 17.01.2024 and the
confirmation order dated 07.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2, by
invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the
impugned orders and the material which was supplied to the petitioner
by the detaining authority after passing of the order. He submits that
though several offences were registered against the petitioner, yet for
the purpose of passing the impugned order, two offences were
considered i.e. Crime No.218 of 2023 registered with Beed Rural Police
Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under Section 65(e),
65(f) (d) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Crime No.241 of 2023
registered with Beed Rural Police Station for the offence punishable
under Section 65 (e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. Learned
Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits the material placed before
the detaining authority has not been considered by her properly and,
there was no subjective satisfaction arrived at, before passing of order or
to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is a bootlegger. He further
submits that in respect of both the offences, CA reports were not
received. He further submits that in Crime No.218 of 2023, the petitioner
wp-582-2025-J.odt
was given notice under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and was not arrested at all. Though preventive action under Section 93
of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 was taken against the
petitioner, however, it was not taken to the logical end. As regards the
statements of in-camera witnesses 'A' and 'B' are concerned, at the most
law and order situation would have been created and not the public
order. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and cannot be allowed to
sustain.
5. Per contra, the learned APP strongly supports the action taken
against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a dangerous
person as defined under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities
of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and
Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act"). The
detaining authority has relied on the two in-camera statements and the
subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. There is no illegality in the
procedure adopted while recording the in-camera statements of the
witnesses. Due to the terror created by the petitioner, people are not
coming forward to lodge report against him and, therefore, it affects the
public order. Learned APP is relying upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by
Ms. Deepa Mudhol Munde, the then District Magistrate, Beed. She
supports the detention order passed by her and tries to demonstrate as
to how she had arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is a
wp-582-2025-J.odt
bootlegger. The subjective satisfaction was arrived at on the basis of in-
camera statements and the contents of the FIR. After the subjective
satisfaction, the detaining authority has passed a reasoned order, which
is then confirmed with the opinion of the Advisory Board and, thereafter,
confirmed by the State Government on 07.04.2025.
6. Before considering the case, we would like to take note of the
legal position as is emerging in the following decisions :-
(i) Nenavath Bujji etc. Vs. State of Telangana and others,
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 367],
(ii) Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Ors.,
[2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743];
(iii) Kanu Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal, [1972 (3) SCC
831] wherein reference was made to the decision in Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [1966 (1) SCR 709];
(iv) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M.M. Mehta, [1995
(3) SCC 237];
(v) Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. The State of West
Bengal, [AIR 1970 SC 852];
(vi) Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R. H. Mendonca
and Ors., (2000 (6) SCC 751) and;
(vii) Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another, [(1981) 4 SCC 647].
wp-582-2025-J.odt
(viii) Arjun s/o Ratan Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others, [Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.12516 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024 :: 2024 INSC 968].
7. Taking into consideration the legal position as summarized above,
it is to be noted herein as to whether the detaining authority while
passing the impugned order had arrived at the subjective satisfaction
and whether the procedure as contemplated has been complied with or
not. In Nenavath Bujji (Supra) itself it has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that illegal detention orders cannot be sustained
and, therefore, strict compliance is required to be made, as it is a
question of liberty of a citizen. As regards Crime No.384 of 2024 is
concerned, the facts would show that at the most law and order situation
would have been created and not the public order. At the outset, it is to
be noted that only two offences were considered for passing the
detention order i.e. Crime 218 of 2023 dated 20.07.2023 and Crime
No.241 of 2023 dated 19.08.2023 registered with Beed Rural Police
Station for the offences punishable under Section 65(e), (f), (d) and
under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act respectively. In
both the offences, CA reports were not before the detaining authority on
the date of passing of the detention order. Therefore, how much
percentage of ethyl alcohol was found therein could not have been
gathered by the detaining authority. The material was not sufficient
wp-582-2025-J.odt
before the detaining authority to categorize the petitioner as bootlegger.
Further, the material on record was not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion
that the activities of the petitioner were creating public order situation. At
the most, even if we consider that he was selling illicit liquor or
manufacturing it, then it would have created law and order situation.
Further, it appears that Chapter Case No.04 of 2023 was proposed
under Section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and it is stated that
final bond was taken, however, it is not stated whether final order was
passed or not and if at all it was passed, then why upon disobedience or
recurring of the offence, the bond that was got executed from the
petitioner was not put for execution i.e. the amount under the same was
not recovered. Section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949
prescribes for demand of security for good behaviour to be taken from
such person. Section 93 (1) of the said Act empowers a District
Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, whenever he receives
information that any person within the local limits of his jurisdiction
habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any
offence punishable under this Act, such Magistrate may require such
person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond,
with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, as the Magistrate
may direct. If the said procedure would have been taken to the logical
end, the Magistrate i.e. respondent No.1 was entitled/empowered to take
wp-582-2025-J.odt
such bond of good behaviour maximum for a period of three years.
Further, sub-section (2) of Section 93 of the said Act prescribes that the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable to any
proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 93 as if bond referred to
therein were a bond required to be executed under Section 110 of the
said Code. Section 110 of the Code then prescribes the procedure for
breach of such bond. That means there is inbuilt mechanism in the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act to curtail the activities of a habitual offender.
These proceedings under the Act were not taken to the logical end.
Therefore, the statement by respondent No.1 that ordinary law would not
have curbed the activities of the petitioner and only the detention order
would have taken care of said activities in the public interest cannot be
upheld.
8. As regards the statements of in-camera witnesses 'A' and 'B' are
concerned, the incident in both the cases would show that general public
was not involved and at the most law and order situation would have
been created and not the public order.
9. Thus, taking into consideration the above observations and the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, at the most, the statements as well
as the offences allegedly committed would reveal that the petitioner had
created law and order situation and not disturbance to the public order.
wp-582-2025-J.odt
Though the Advisory Board had approved the detention of the petitioner,
yet we are of the opinion that there was no material before the detaining
authority to categorize the petitioner as a dangerous person or
bootlegger.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, following order is passed :-
ORDER
I) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
II) The detention order dated 09.01.2024 bearing No.2024/RB-
Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-02 passed by respondent No.1 as well as the
approval order dated 17.01.2024 and the confirmation order dated
07.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2, are hereby quashed and
set aside.
III) Petitioner - Narayan Vasudev Ghumare shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
IV) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
