Iqbal Mohammad Gaus Shaikh vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3085 Bom

Bombay High Court

Iqbal Mohammad Gaus Shaikh vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 7 March, 2025

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

2025:BHC-AS:11317-DB



                        Gokhale                            1 of 8                          3-wp-st-22116-24


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 22116 OF 2024

                      Iqbal Mohammad Gaus Shaikh                                     ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                      Commissioner of Police, Pune City & Ors.                       ..Respondents

                                                    __________
                      Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w. Anjali Raut for Petitioner.
                      Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for State/Respondent.
                                                    __________

                                                    CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                            SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 7 MARCH 2025

ORAJ JUDGMENT: (Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)

1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated

30.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune city, under

the provision 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 'MPDA Act'), bearing number O.W.No./CRIME PCB/ DET/

KHADAK/GAUS SHAIKH/703/2024. Along with the detention

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date:

2025.03.10 13:26:29 +0530

2 of 8 3-wp-st-22116-24

order, the Respondent No.1 Commissioner of Police, Pune City,

passed the committal order directing that the Petitioner be

detained in Akola Central Prison, Akola. The detenue was served

with the grounds of detention dated 30.08.2024. The grounds of

detention mention the offences registered between 2018 to 2023.

They are referred to in paragraph-3.1, as follows:-

i) C.R.No.3 of 2018 registered with Khadak police station on 03.01.2018.

ii) C.R.No.259 of 2019 registered with Lashkar police station on 11.06.2019.

iii) C.R.No.383 of 2021 registered with Khadak police station on 17.10.2021.

iv) C.R.No.151 of 2023 registered with Khadak police station on 10.05.2023.

2. These offences were under various sections of the Indian

Penal Code viz. Section 387, 353, 324, 354 etc. The Respondent

No.1 had mentioned in paragraph-2 that on account of those

activities, the detenue was habitually committing the offences

under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I.P.C., as well as, under

Chapter V of the Arms Act and the petitioner was a dangerous

person as defined U/s.2(b-1) of the MPDA Act. It was also

3 of 8 3-wp-st-22116-24

mentioned that, his criminal activities were prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. There is a reference to two preventive

actions taken U/s.55 of the Maharashtra Police Act and U/s.110(g)

of the Cr.P.C., but the detaining authority had clarified that those

preventive actions were shown only to highlight the petitioner's

desperate tendencies to commit violent crime.

3. Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the grounds of detention refers to

two registered offences and two 'in-camera' statements. They are

as follows:

i) C.R.No.218 of 2024 registered with Khadak police station on 22.06.2024.

ii) C.R.No.1074 of 2024 registered with Hadapsar police station on 03.07.2024.

4. Two 'in-camera' statements were of the witnesses 'A' and

'B' in respect of the incidents dated 02.07.2024 and 08.07.2024

respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

allegations in the registered F.I.Rs show that those incidents arose

purely out of the personal family dispute. It cannot be said that,

4 of 8 3-wp-st-22116-24

because of these incidents the public order was adversely affected.

She further submitted that the 'in-camera' statements appeared to

be concocted as they were recorded on 18.07.2024 and

22.07.2024 just to create basis for passing of the detention order.

Those incidents were dated 02.07.2024 and 08.07.2024. She,

therefore, submitted that the proceedings for passing the detention

order was initiated on a false basis, only to issue the detention

order.

These are the only submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and no other grounds are raised before

us.

6. Learned APP submitted that the earlier offences

mentioned herein above from the year 2018 to 2023, by their very

nature, affected the public order. The material of these offences is

already given to the petitioner. He further submitted that, even

otherwise, the 'in-camera' statements which are referred to in the

grounds of detention definitely show that those incidents affected

the public order. He referred to Section 5A of the MPDA Act and

5 of 8 3-wp-st-22116-24

submitted that, even if some grounds on which the detention order

is based are left out, the order is still valid on the remaining

grounds, if the requirements of the definition of 'dangerous person'

are satisfied.

7. We have considered these submissions. There is some

force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner

that C.R.No.131 of 2024 (in the grounds translated in Marathi

language, C.R.Number is correctly mentioned as C.R.No.218 of

2024) was in respect of a private dispute which had taken place

inside a shop. The second incident in respect of C.R.No.1074 of

2024 of Hadapsar police station may also be a private dispute,

however, the incidents mentioned by witnesses 'A' and 'B' had

occurred in a public place and the description of those incidents

show that it affected the public order.

8. Witness 'A' has stated that on 02.07.2024 at about

9:30p.m. he was going home on his motorcycle. When he was

going towards Ramoshi Gate Chowk, he came to the PMT bus stop.

He saw that the public on the road were running around and the

6 of 8 3-wp-st-22116-24

shopkeepers were closing their shops in a hurry. Witness 'A' saw

that the Petitioner along with his two associates were shouting and

were beating anyone who came across them in the street. This

witness also tried to leave the place in fear, but the Petitioner

stopped him. The Petitioner had a koyta in his hand. He kicked the

witness and knocked him down. He abused that witness and

removed Rs.800/- from his pocket. He threatened that witness

and, therefore, no F.I.R. was lodged.

9. Similarly, witness 'B' has described the incident dated

08.07.2024. At about 10:15p.m. he was going home from his

work. When he came infront of Vijay Vallabh School, the petitioner

stopped him and removed Rs.750/- from his pocket by showing

Koyta. The petitioner slapped him and his accomplice abused him.

This happened in a public place.

10. In this view of the matter, it can be seen that, the

incidents referred to in the 'in-camera' statements directly affected

public order. Therefore, even if C.R.No.218 of 2024 and

C.R.No.1074/24 of Hadapsar police station are left out of

7 of 8 3-wp-st-22116-24

consideration, the incidents described by the witnesses 'A' and 'B'

were sufficient to reach a conclusion that the Petitioner was a

dangerous person and was acting in a manner prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order.

11. Section 5A of the MPDA Act reads thus:

"Section 5A - Grounds of detention severable

Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under Section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly-

(a) Such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are-

                                  (i) vague,
                                   (ii) non-existent,
                                   (iii) not relevant,
                                  (iv) not connected or not                    proximately
                                  connected with such person, or

(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever,

and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the State Government or an officer mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 3 making such order would have been satisfied as provided in Section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or ground and made the order of detention;

8 of 8 3-wp-st-22116-24

(b) the State Government or such officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said Section 3 after being satisfied as provided in that Section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds."

12. In view of this clear provision U/s.5A of the MPDA Act

and on the basis of statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', we do not

find any fault in the detention order. There is no reason to

interfere with the same.

13. Hence, the Petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)