Bombay High Court
Dilip Sheshrao Chavhan vs Additional Chief Secretary Govt. Of ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:2945-DB
1 wp992.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.992/2024
Dilip Sheshrao Chavhan
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o Dadham Lakhanwada,
Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Additional Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 440 032.
2. Collector and District Magistrate,
Buldhana, District Buldhana.
3. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Buldhana Sub Division,
Buldhana, Tq. & Distt. Buldhana.
4. The Police Inspector,
Police Station Hiwarkhed,
Tq. Khamgaon Distt. Buldhana. ... Respondents
-----------------
Ms. Saware Sonali Madhukarappa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.
----------------
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 13.3.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 21.3.2025.
2 wp992.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges
the detention order dated 20.8.2024 passed by respondent No.2
which was further approved by respondent No.1 on 29.8.2024
under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous
Persons and Video Pirates Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged
in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short
"MPDA Act").
3. The registration of last four offences, namely Crime
Nos.200/2021 registered at Hiwarkhed Police Station for the
offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian
Penal Code, 207/2021 registered at Hiwarkhed Police Station
under Sections 395, 397 of I.P.C, 98/2023 under Sections 4/25
3 wp992.2024
of the Arms Act, 129/2023 under Sections 307 and 504 of the
I.P.C., 223/2023 under Sections 419 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of
I.P.C. and Crime No.70/2024 under Sections 382, 392, 420 r/w.
Section 34 of the I.P.C. have been relied upon by the respondents
to pass the impugned order.
4. Major grounds in the petition on the basis of which
the order of detention is being challenged are as under:-
(a) The last crime is registered against the petitioner on
15.3.2024 and the detention order is passed on 20.8.2024. There
is a delay of about six months in passing the detention order
which is not explained by the detaining authority.
(b) At the time of proposal being forwarded on 6.3.2024,
bail was granted in all the five offences mentioned in the said
proposal for detention, which has been overlooked by the
detaining authority.
4 wp992.2024
(c) As per the contents of proposal issued for detention,
statements of both the unnamed witnesses have been obtained
after the petitioner was released on bail in all the five cases.
5. In Crime No.98/2023 dated 9.6.2023 registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, by
virtue of search warrant obtained from the Court, when search of
the house of petitioner was carried out, iron sword, 300 yellow
colour metal coins and bicycle worth ₹ 70,000, Laptop of Apple
Company, KTM motorcycle of ₹ 1,00,000 were seized from his
possession.
In another Crime bearing No.129/2023, the
complainant has stated that on 3.8.2023 at around 7.30 P.M.
when he was present in the house with his wife and other family
members, at that time, petitioner went to his house and started
asking about the legal notice sent by the wife of the petitioner
through an Advocate and quarrelled with the family of the
complainant and when he was given an understanding, the
5 wp992.2024
detenu took knife out from his waist and injured the complainant
by stabbing him in the stomach.
6. It is the contention of learned Advocate of the
petitioner that there is a delay in the order of detention which is
not explained. The bail orders are not considered by the detaining
authority while passing the said order. The statements of the
witnesses are of generalized nature and largely in the form of
opinion. It is stated by learned Advocate for the petitioner that
the offences do not breach the 'public order' and the petitioner is
not a dangerous person as per section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act.
7. Ms. Saware, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has
placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar Vs. Ramamurthi and
others, AIR 1994 SC 656,
(ii) Vijay Baburao Avhad Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, 2023 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 126,
6 wp992.2024
8. Per contra, learned A.P.P. Mr. Doifode relying upon
the affidavit-in-reply vehemently opposed the arguments of the
petitioner. He submitted that four recent offences committed by
the petitioner as mentioned in paragraph No.3.3 to 3.6 in the
grounds of detention have been taken into account for passing the
detention order. He then submitted that the detenu was detained
already in Crime No.70/2024 in District Central Prison,
Buldhana in Magisterial Custody vide order dated 12.8.2024.
Learned A.P.P. further submitted that perusal of the above stated
four crimes reveals that the petitioner is a dangerous person
having no fear of law being continuously involved in criminal
activities and due to his terror in the society, witnesses do not
come forward to complain against him. He further contended that
in another crime bearing No.223/2023 dated 10.11.2023, it has
been reported that the petitioner had misappropriated ₹ 4,00,000
from the complainant by cheating him by giving fake gold coins.
It appears that within a span of six months, the petitioner
committed three offences which are offences against human body
7 wp992.2024
and property. The in-camera statements were recorded by the
Police Inspector, Police Station, Hiwarkhed and the statements
were seen and verified by the detaining authority. It is submitted
that the subjective satisfaction regarding genuineness of the
statements and witnesses was recorded by respondent No.3 on
26.3.2024 by exchanging dialogue with the witnesses. Therefore,
the detaining authority has rightly considered that activities of the
petitioner as dangerous and it has created a sense of terror in the
minds of people.
9. We have considered the submissions made by both
the parties.
10. Learned Advocate for the petitioner took us through
the detention order. It appears from the detention order that the
offences committed since 2021 are considered for passing the
detention order. Total six offences are considered. All are about
8 wp992.2024
theft and bodily injury and about using the deadly weapons while
committing the offences.
11. Two confidential statements which are considered by
the detaining authority are identical. No specific incident is
mentioned in the statements. Both the witnesses have stated
about general criminal character of the petitioner.
12. On perusal of the crimes which are considered for
passing the detention order it is clear that there is delay in passing
the detention order from the date of last offence which is
committed on 26.2.2024 and the order is passed on 2.8.2024.
Statements which are recorded are dated 4.3.2024. Said
statements were not verified by the person who has recorded it
and not even seen by the detaining authority.
13. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep
9 wp992.2024
Nilkanth Paturkar (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed in para 9 as under:-
"The question whether the prejudicial activities of a
person necessitating to pass an order of detention is
proximate to the time when the order is made or the
live-link between the prejudicial activities and the
purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule
can be precisely formulated that would be applicable
under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines
can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test
of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by
merely counting number of months between the
offending acts and the order of detention. However,
when there is undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activities and the passing of detention
order, the Court has to scrutinise whether the
detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a
delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable
explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned,
when called upon to answer and further the Court
has to investigate whether the causal connection has
been broken in the circumstances of each case. "
14. The respondents have not given any explanation for
delay.
10 wp992.2024
15. Though the petitioner was on bail in all the earlier
offences the bail orders are not considered by the detaining
authority. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment
passed by this Court in case of Vijay Baburao Avhad V/s. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2023(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 126
wherein this Court has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Sunila Jain V/s. Union of India and another
reported in 2006 Mh.L.J. OnLine (Cri,) (S.C.) 50 and observed
in para 13 as under:-
"13. It will be also useful to make a reference to Sunila
Jain (supra) In Paragraphs 12 and 18 of the decision, it
is held thus:-
"12. The question as to whether an offence is bailable
or not is not a vital fact whereupon an order of bail can
be passed. Application of mind to the averments made
in a bail application may be relevant where the grounds
stated therein reveal certain facts which are vital for
passing an order of detention. In a case of such nature, it
may be said that the application for bail was necessary to
be placed before the detaining authority and non-
furnishing a copy thereof to the detenu would vitiate the
order of detention."
"18. The decisions of this Court referred to
hereinbefore must be read in their entirety. It is no
doubt true that whether a detenu on the date of the
passing of the order of detention was in custody or not,
would be a relevant fact. It would also be a relevant fact
11 wp992.2024
that whether he is free on that date and if he is, whether
he is subjected to certain conditions in pursuance to and
in furtherance of the order of bail. If pursuant to or in
furtherance of such conditions he may not be able to
flee from justice, that may be held to be relevant
consideration for the purpose of passing an order of
detention but the converse is not true. Some such other
grounds raised in the application for bail and forming
the basis of passing an order of bail may also be held to
be relevant. It would, however, not be correct to contend
that irrespective of the nature of the application for bail
or irrespective of the nature of the restrictions, if any,
placed by the court of competent jurisdiction in
releasing the detenu on bail, the same must invariably
and mandatorily be placed before the detaining
authority and the copies thereof supplied to the detenu."
(underline supplied)"
16. The detaining authority has relied on the identical
statements which were not even verified by the detaining
authority or the person who has recorded it. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the recent judgment about stereotype statements in case
of Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad V/s. The State of Maharashtra and
others in Criminal Appeal No.5204/2024 (Arising out of SLP
(Cri.) No.12516/2024) decided on 11.12.2024 in para 17 has
observed as under:-
12 wp992.2024
"17. Insofar as statements of the two unnamed
witnesses are concerned, the allegations are as vague
as it could be. In any case the statements which were
stereotype even if taken on its face value would show
that the threat given to the said witnesses is between
the appellant and the said witnesses. The statements
also do not show that the said witnesses were
threatened by the appellant in the presence of the
villagers which would create a perception in the
mind of the villagers that the appellant herein is a
threat to the public order."
17. The detaining authority has not followed the
mandatory procedure while passing the detention order. The
detention order is passed in a most casual manner though the
offences are of serious nature. Considering the casual approach
while passing the detention order, the same requires to be quashed
and set aside.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed.
The detention order dated 20.8.2024 passed by
respondent No.2 which was confirmed by respondent No.1 on
29.8.2024 is quashed and set aside.
13 wp992.2024
The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other crime.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/03/2025 10:48:45
