Bombay High Court
Aryan Naresh Mandale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 June, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:17420-DB
wp-556-2025-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.556 OF 2025
Aryan Naresh Mandale
Age: 23 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o. Bodhighat, Ambajogai,
Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Section Officer,
Home Department (Special),
2nd Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The District Magistrate,
Collector and District
Magistrate Office, Beed,
Taluka and District Beed.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Harsool,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. .. Respondents
...
Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, 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 Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane for the
petitioner and learned APP Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar for the respondents
- State.
wp-556-2025-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 12.03.2025
bearing No.2025/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-02 passed by respondent
No.2 and approval order dated 21.03.2025 as well as the confirmation
order dated 14.05.2025 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.398 of 2024 registered with Ambajogai City
Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections
125, 352, 35(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Crime No.558 of 2024 registered with Ambajogai City Police Station,
District Beed for the offences punishable under Section 109, 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that two offences i.e. Crime No.398 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024
and Crime No.558 of 2024 dated 26.12.2024 as well as two in-camera
statements have been considered by the detaining authority for passing
wp-556-2025-J.odt
the detention order. However, the order would demonstrate that there
was no such material which would give subjective satisfaction to the
detaining authority to pass the order of detention. The ordinary law was
sufficient to take care of the alleged criminal activities of the petitioner.
The in-camera statements were based on unbelievable story and,
therefore, such illegal order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
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 relies on the affidavit-in-reply of Mr. Avinash
Pathak, the District Magistrate, Beed, who has stated as to how he had
arrived at the subjective satisfaction and what was the material before
him at the time of passing the impugned order. Learned APP submits
that in spite of involvement of the petitioner in so many cases, his
criminal activities have not been curtailed. The criminal antecedents can
wp-556-2025-J.odt
be taken into consideration for passing the detention order. There is no
illegality or error committed by the learned District Magistrate in holding
the petitioner as a dangerous person. Therefore, no fault can be found in
the impugned order.
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-556-2025-J.odt
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 aforesaid, two offences i.e. Crime
No.398 of 2024 and Crime No.558 of 2024 and two in-camera
statements were considered for passing the detention order. As regards
Crime No.398 of 2024 is concerned, while passing the detention order,
the detaining authority has stated that the petitioner was absconding and
not yet arrested. That means, the order came to be passed allegedly
when the petitioner is absconding. It is not stated whether steps under
Section 7 of the M.P.D.A. have been taken. As regards Crime No.558 of
2024 is concerned, the entire story in the FIR would show that general
public was not involved. At the most, law and order situation would have
been created and not the public order.
8. Further, as regards in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B'
are concerned, we would say that at the most law and order situation
would have arisen and not the public order and, therefore, we conclude
that there was no such material before the learned District Magistrate,
wp-556-2025-J.odt
which would have given him subjective satisfaction that only detention of
the petitioner would curtail the criminal activities of the petitioner and the
ordinary law will not give the same result.
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.
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) Writ Petition stands allowed.
II) Detention order dated 12.03.2025 bearing No.2025/RB-
Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-02 passed by respondent No.2 and the
approval order dated 21.03.2025 as well as confirmation order
dated 14.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1, are hereby quashed
and set aside.
wp-556-2025-J.odt
III) Petitioner viz. Aryan Naresh Mandale 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
