Bombay High Court
Mohammad Yusuf vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S.M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:14169-DB
:1: 8. WP 707 of 2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 707 OF 2025
Mohammad Yusuf
Age 52 years,
Survey No. 143, Gali No. 03,
Golden Nagar, Malegaon,
Dist. Nashik. .....Petitioner
(Father of the detenue)
Shahabaz Ahmed Mohammad
Yusuf @ Commando (Detenue)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Home Department (Special)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The District Magistrate,
Nashik.
3. The Superintendent of Nashik
Road Centre Prison, Nashik. .....Respondents
-----
Ms. Aisha Z. Ansari - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand - APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 21st MARCH 2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. This is a petition filed by the father of the detenue-Shahabaz
Ahmed Mohammad Yusuf @ Commando challenging the detention order
1 of 7
SEEMA by SEEMA
Seema
KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date:
YELKAR 15:33:24 +0530
2025.03.27
:2: 8. WP 707 of 2025.odt
bearing no. Desk-1/POL-1/MPDA/2024 dated 30.07.2024 issued by the
Respondent No. 2-the District Magistrate, Nashik.
2. The detention order is passed under the provisions of Maharashtra
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons
engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981(for short
M.P.D.A.). The date of the detention is 30 th July 2024. Vide a separate
committal order the Petitioner was directed to be detained in Nashik Central
Prison Nashik.
3. Heard Shri Ansari learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned APP
Shri Gavand for the Respondent No. 1-State.
4. The detenue was served with the grounds of detention dated
30.07.2024. There was a list of nine registered offences at Pawarwadi Police
Station, Ramjanpura City Police Station, Azad Nagar Police Station,
Malegaon City Police Station and Malegaon Camp Police Station between the
year 2018 to 2020. There was reference of two preventive actions in the
grounds. The first was an externment proceeding and the other was a
chapter case under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However,
the detention order was based on CR No. 24 of 2024 registered at Ayesha
Nagar Police Station under Sections 395, 143, 147, 323, 324, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and two in-camera statements of the Witnesses-A and B.
2 of 7
Seema
:3: 8. WP 707 of 2025.odt
5. The C.R. No. 24 of 2024 of the Ayesha Nagar Police Station pertains
to the incident dated 03.03.2024 which had taken place at around 5.00
p.m.. In that incident the detenue and his accomplices stopped the
informant and witnesses on Kusamba Road and assaulted them. The
Complainant's mobile phone and Rs. 20,000/- were snatched.
6. In-camera statement of the Witness-A refers to the incident which
had taken place in third week of January at around 10.30 p.m.. In that
incident the detenue had forcibly removed Rs. 250/- from his pant pocket.
7. In-camera statement of Witness B refers to the incident dated 05 th
February which had taken place at about 9.30 p.m.. At that time, that
witness was assaulted by the detenue and his accomplices.
8. Based on these materials, the detaining authority recorded his
subjective satisfaction that the detenue was a Dangerous person within
the meaning of the M.P.D.A. Act and he needed to be detained.
9. Accordingly, the detention order was passed. Though learned
Counsel for the Petitioner has raised many grounds, but she placed
reliance on two particular grounds. First ground was that the detention
order was not passed promptly. No urgency was shown by the Detaining
authority or the Sponsoring authority in initiating this action. That would
indicate that detaining him after the lapse of unreasonable period from
3 of 7
Seema
:4: 8. WP 707 of 2025.odt
the last activity was not needed at all. The second ground was raised by
her was that the detenue was not served with the in-camera statements at
all.
10. Learned APP Shri Gavand relied on the affidavit-in-reply to oppose
those submissions. We have perused the affidavit of the detaining
authority. The submissions regarding delay in passing the order was
referred to in paragraph no. 7 of the affidavit-in-reply. But we find that
there was mere denial of the submissions in that behalf raised by the
detenue. No particulars were provided as to what happened between the
period of the last activity and passing of the detention order. In-camera
statements were recorded on 15.03.2024 and 17.03.2024 respectively.
These statements were verified on 20.03.2024 and 21.03.2024. After that
the detention order was passed on 30.07.2024.
11. The affidavit mentions that due to continuous and dangerous
criminal activities of the detenue, on 08.04.2024, the sponsoring authority
i.e. Senior PI of Ayesha Nagar Police Station had forwarded a proposal
under MPDA Act to Additional S.P., Malegaon, Nashik (Rural), who
carefully went through all the papers and the proposal was forwarded to
the Superintendent of Police, Nashik (Rural) on 13.04.2024. On
23.04.2024, Superintendent of Police, Nashik (Rural) forwarded the
proposal to the detaining authority who received it on 25.04.2024. From
4 of 7
Seema
:5: 8. WP 707 of 2025.odt
that point onwards, till passing of the detention order on 30.07.2024, the
affidavit is completely silent. Nothing was explained as to what transpired
between 25.04.2024 upto 29.07.2024.
12. Thus, there is force in the submission of learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that the authorities had not shown urgency in passing the
detention order, if the detenue's prejudicial activities were so dangerous
for the society at large that it affected the public order.
13. It is not every delay which by itself vitiates the detention order but
unexplained and unreasonable delay certainly can be looked into for
considering the sustainability of the detention order.
14. In this regard we find that in this particular case, the Authorities
have failed to explain as to why the detention order was not passed
expeditiously showing sufficient urgency.
15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised another ground that
in-camera statements of the witnesses A and B were not furnished to the
detenue. In this behalf learned APP Shri Gavand submitted that the record
shows the original Marathi in-camera statements were furnished to him
and there was signature of the detenue showing that those statements
were furnished. However, he conceded that those Marathi statements
5 of 7
Seema
:6: 8. WP 707 of 2025.odt
were not translated into Urdu. Thus, the detenue was not furnished with
in-camera statements in Urdu language with which he was conversant.
16. The Petitioner has stated in the petition, i.e. in paragraph no. 4 that
the detenue is conversant only with Urdu language. This fact is also
accepted by the detaining authority; as Urdu translation of the detention
order itself and the grounds of the detention translated into Urdu were
served on the detenue.
17. In this background, it was equally important for the detaining
authority to have served the detenue with the Urdu translation of the
Marathi in-camera statements. That was not done. Therefore, the detenue
is deprived of making the earliest effective representation challenging the
order of the detention, thereby affecting his valuable right under Article
22(5) of the Constitution of the India.
18. Thus, on all these counts the detention order is liable to be set
aside. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The order of Detention bearing No. DESK-1/POL-1/MPDA/
02/2024, dated 30.07.2024 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
6 of 7
Seema
:7: 8. WP 707 of 2025.odt
(iii) The detenue shall be released forthwith if not required in any
other case.
(iv) The Writ Petition is disposed of.
(S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
7 of 7
Seema
