Bombay High Court
Maruti Narayan Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 March, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2025:BHC-AS:11375-DB
1/7 09-WP-20-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.20 OF 2025
Maruti Narayan Jadhav .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Harshvardhan B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioner.
• Smt. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATE : 07th MARCH, 2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order
dated 23/10/2024 passed by the Respondent No.2, the District
Magistrate, Solapur, bearing No.2024/DCB-2/RR-4977(1)/24.
The Petitioner is detained in Yerwada Central Jail, Pune. Along
with the detention order, the Petitioner was served served with
the grounds of detention. The paragraph No.4 of the grounds of
detention mentioned five previous offences registered in
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
different police stations viz. Mohol, Jail Road, Kamti and Vijapur
MANUSHREE NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2025.03.11
16:51:06
+0530
Naka, between 2017 to 2024. There was a proposal for taking
Nesarikar
2/7 09-WP-20-25.odt
the preventive action u/s 107 of Cr.P.C. The detention order then
refers to the registered offence i.e. C.R.No.493/2024 at Mohol
police station u/s 74, 75 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and u/s 3(1)
(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and u/s 7(1)(d) of Civil Protection Rights Act. Besides the
registered offence, there is reference to two 'in-camera'
statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' dated 30/08/2024. Based on
this material, the detention order was passed.
2. Heard Mr. Harshvardhan B. Suryawanshi, learned
Counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP
for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner made only one
submission before us which he has taken in grounds at
paragraph No.8 of this Petition. He submitted and it is
mentioned in that ground that the representation dated
02/12/2024 was sent to State Government against his
detention, but it was not expeditiously dealt with and decided,
3/7 09-WP-20-25.odt
thereby infringing his valuable right under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
therefore submitted that on this ground the Petition be allowed
and the Petitioner be directed to be released forthwith.
4. In answer to this submission, learned APP tried to
justify the delay and explain it by referring to the affidavit filed
by Mr. Rajendra Bhalwane, Deputy Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. She
relied on paragraph No.2 of the said affidavit.
5. We have considered these submissions. This is a serious
issue raised by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
detenu's representation was not expeditiously considered by the
State Government. There was delay which has remained
unexplained. In that context, explanation of the State
Government through Mr. Bhalwane's affidavit is as follows:
"2. With reference to Para (8) of Writ Petition, It is
submitted that the representation dated
02.12.2024 of the advocate on the behalf of the
4/7 09-WP-20-25.odt
detenu was received by the Central Registry Unit
of Mantralaya as on 02.12.2024 By Hand. The
Central Registry Unit forward it to, Desk Special-
3B by e-office on 03.12.2024. Therefore, the
remarks were called for, from the Detaining
Authority i.e. The District Magistrate, Solapur on
the 05.12.2024 by Special Branch-3B Desk. The
remarks of the Detaining Authority were received
on 16.01.2025 vide letter dated 16.01.2025. The
concerned Assistant Section Officer submitted file
containing remarks of Detaining Authority along
with the representation of the detenu to the
Section Officer on 16.01.2025. The Section Officer
endorsed it on 17.01.2025 and forwarded it to the
Under Secretary on the same day. The Under
Secretary endorsed it on 17.01.2025 and
forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary on the same
day. The Deputy Secretary endorsed it on the
17.01.2025 and forwarded it to the Additional
Chief Secretary (Home). As being holidays on
18.01.2025 (Saturday) and 19.01.2025 (Sunday),
the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) considered
the remarks of the detaining Authority and
rejected the said representation on 20.01.2025 by
applying his mind. The rejection of representation
was communicated by post to the detenu vide
letter dated 20.01.2025 through the Registry
5/7 09-WP-20-25.odt
section of Home Department. Thus, the
representation of the detenu was considered by
the State Government as expeditiously as
possible."
Thus, it can be seen that after receiving the
representation, by the concerned Desk on 03/12/2024, the
remarks of the Respondent No.2, the detaining authority, was
called for on 05/12/2024. But the remarks were received only
on 16/01/2025. There is absolutely no explanation coming forth
either in the affidavit of Mr. Bhalwane or in the affidavit of the
detaining authority i.e. the Respondent No.2. The fact remains
that between 05/12/2024 and 16/01/2025 what steps were
taken by the detaining authority, has remained totally
unexplained. It is not every delay which entitles the detenu to
claim release from his detention, but it is only the unexplained
delay which affects his valuable right. In this case, there is
absolutely no explanation as to how the representation was
processed between 05/12/2024 to 16/01/2025. From
16/01/2025 onwards, the representation was processed
expeditiously and ultimately it was rejected on 20/01/2025. But
6/7 09-WP-20-25.odt
when the detenu's detention is under preventive detention laws,
the authorities are required to be diligent in processing the
detenu's representation. As rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner, his valuable right of making the
earliest effective representation is infringed because affording
the detenu to make an earliest representation also includes
consideration of the representation expeditiously. Accordingly,
affording a right to make a representation without processing it
expeditiously, has no meaning. It definitely infringes his valuable
right if the representation is not decided expeditiously. In a
given case, the delay caused in considering and processing
representation can be explained and can be accepted. But in this
particular case, since there is absolutely no explanation, the said
delay between 05/12/2024 and 16/01/2025 has remained
totally unexplained. Thus, the Petitioner's valuable right is
infringed. The detenu is entitled to be released from detention
on this ground. The detention order makes reference to his right
to make representation but that right is not given effect to by the
authorities themselves. Therefore, the detention order is also
liable to be set aside.
7/7 09-WP-20-25.odt
6. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (B) which reads thus;
"(B) This Hon'ble Court be Pleased to quash
and set aside the impugned detention
order dated 23.10.2024 bearing no.
2024/DCB-2/RR-4977(1)/2024 issued
under section 3(1) of M.P.D. Act 1981 by
the Respondent No.4 and on quashing the
same, the Petitioner ordered for release
forthwith."
(iii) The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
(iv) The Petition is disposed of.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
