Bombay High Court
Shaikh Amer Alias Ad Shaikh Pasha vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 June, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:17421-DB
wp-446-2025-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.446 OF 2025
Shaikh Amer @ AD s/o Shaikh Pasha
Age: 27 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Govardhan Ghat, Nanded,
At present Farooq Nagar, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Addl. Chief Secretary,
Home Department (Special),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The District Magistrate,
Nanded, District Nanded.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison Harsul,
Taluka and District Aurangabad. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Prashant P. Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for the respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 30 JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Prashant P. Giri for the petitioner and
learned APP Mr. G. A. Kulkarni for respondents - State.
wp-446-2025-J.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally
with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
3. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 04.10.2024
passed by respondent No.2 bearing No.2024/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-
58 and the approval order dated 14.10.2024 as well as confirmation
order dated 04.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1, 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.338 of 2024 registered with Nanded Rural
Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under
Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and Crime No.784 of 2024
registered with Nanded Rural Police Station, District Nanded for the
offences punishable under Sections 3, 7 punishable under Section 25 of
the Arms Act. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that though
the petitioner is stated to be involved in fourteen offences, only two
offences i.e. Crime No.338 of 2024 and Crime No.784 of 2024 were
considered for passing the detention order. Both these offences were
wp-446-2025-J.odt
still under investigation. If the contents of both the FIRs are considered,
then it can be seen that they would have raised only law and order
situation at the most and not the public order. Further, it is stated that in
Crime No.338 of 2024, the petitioner has been released on bail
30.09.2024 and in Crime No.784 of 2024 he has been released on
18.09.2024 by the competent Court. The detaining authority had not
considered the bail orders passed by the competent Court, when in fact
the detention order came to be passed on 04.10.2024. As regards
statements of confidential witnesses 'A' and 'B' are concerned, at the
most those statements would have raised law and order situation and
not the public order.
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 relied on the affidavit-in-reply of Mr. Abhijit
wp-446-2025-J.odt
Raut, the District Magistrate, Nanded/detaining authority. He supports
the detention order passed by him and tries to demonstrate as to how he
had arrived at the subjective satisfaction. He further states that his order
has been approved by the State Government and also by the Advisory
Board.
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) 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];
(iii) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M.M. Mehta, [1995
(3) SCC 237];
(iv) Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. The State of West
Bengal, [AIR 1970 SC 852];
(v) Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R. H. Mendonca and
Ors., (2000 (6) SCC 751) and;
(vi) Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another, [(1981) 4 SCC 647].
7. Taking into consideration the legal position as summarized above,
it is to be noted herein as to whether the detaining authority while
wp-446-2025-J.odt
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. The first and the foremost fact to be noted
is that only two offences have been considered by the detaining authority
i.e. Crime No.338 of 2024 dated 24.04.2024 and Crime No.784 of 2024
dated 28.08.2024. The incident in both the FIRs would show that general
public was not involved. At the most law and order situation would have
been arisen and not the public order. In fact, the petitioner has been
released on bail in both the offences on 30.09.2024 and 18.09.2024
respectively, but the detaining authority has not considered the bail
orders. Here, we would like to rely on the decision in Joyi Kitty Joseph
Vs. Union of India and Ors., [Criminal Appeal No.___ of 2025
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.16893 of 2024)
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.03.2025], wherein
reliance has been placed on the decision in Ameena Begum v. State of
Telangana and others, [(2023) 9 SCC 587] and it has been observed
that preventive detention is impermissible when the ordinary law of the
land is sufficient to deal with the situation was per incuriam to the
Constitution Bench decision in Haradhan Saha vs. State of W.B.
wp-446-2025-J.odt
[(1975) 3 SCC 198], in the limited judicial review available to
constitutional courts in preventive detention matters. However, in
Ameena Begum (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the true
distinction between a threat to "law and order" and acts "prejudicial to
public order" and it is stated that it cannot be determined merely by the
nature or quality of the act complained of, but in the proper degree and
extent of its impact on the society. Further, it is observed that "When bail
was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the
detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient
to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities; which is the
very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The detention order
being silent on that aspect, we interfere with the detention order only on
the ground of the detaining authority having not looked into the
conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very
same offence; the allegations in which also have led to the preventive
detention, assailed herein, to enter a satisfaction as to whether those
conditions are sufficient or not to restrain the detenu from indulging in
further like activities."
8. Further, reliance can be placed on the decision in Dhanyam Vs.
State of Kerala and Ors., [Criminal Appeal No.2897 of 2025 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No.14740 of 2024) decided on 06.06.2025], wherein
it has been observed that :-
wp-446-2025-J.odt
"17. From perusal of Section 2(j), it is evident that a
person who indulges in activities "harmful to maintenance
of public order" is sought to be covered by the Act. This
Court in Sk. Nazneen Vs. State of Telangana, [(2023) 9
SCC 633] had emphasized on the distinction between
public order as also law and order situations :
"18. In two recent decisions [Banka
Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9
SCC 415 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri.) 446; Mallada K.
Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, (2023) 13 SCC
537: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424], this Court had
set aside the detention orders which were
passed, under the same Act i.e. the present
Telangana Act, primarily relying upon the
decision in Ram Manohar Lohia [Ram Manohar
Lohia v. State of Bihar, 1965 SCC OnLine SC9]
and holding that the detention orders were not
justified as it was dealing with a law and order
situation and not a public order situation."
19. ......The observations made in the detention order do
not ascribe any reason as to how the actions of the
detenu are against the public order of the State. As
discussed above, given the extraordinary nature of the
power of preventive detention, no reasons are assigned
by the detaining authority, as to why and how the actions
of the detenu warrant the exercise of such an exceptional
power.
wp-446-2025-J.odt
20. Moreover, it has been stated therein by the
authority that the detenu is violating the conditions of bail
imposed upon him in the cases that have been
considered for passing the order of detention. However,
pertinently, no application has been filed by the
respondent-State in any of the four cases, alleging
violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have
not even been spelt out here."
9. Perusal of the statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' would show that
general public was not involved. Those statements would have created
at the most law and order situation and not the public order.
10. 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.
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.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, following order is passed :-
wp-446-2025-J.odt
ORDER
I) Writ Petition stands allowed.
II) Detention order dated 04.10.2024 passed by respondent
No.2 bearing No.2024/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-58 and approval
order dated 14.10.2024 as well as confirmation order dated
04.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed and
set aside.
III) Petitioner viz. Shaikh Amer alias AD Shaikh Pasha 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
