Bombay High Court
Sonihalsingh Sonu Sameersingh Bhada ( ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 25 March, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:3284-DB
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.134 OF 2025
Sonihalsingh @ Sonu S/o Sameersingh Bhada Petitioner
Aged about 30 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o Sant Chokhoba Ward,
Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha.
-Versus-
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department (Special),
Mantralaya, Mumbia-32.
2. The Collector & District Magistrate,
Wardha, Distt. Wardha.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Wardha, Distt.
Wardha.
4. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Hinganghat,
Respondents
Distt. Wardha.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adv.S.B.Wahane, h/f Mr.Yash Rashtrapal Sawaitul, counsel for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. R-1to 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 25/03/2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
1) Heard.
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, the Criminal Writ Petition is heard
finally.
3) By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the
legality of the impugned detention order bearing No./ A.K. Home/Desk
- 2(B) WS/1501/2024 dated 24th October 2024 passed by Respondent
no.2 - Collector, Wardha, under Section 3(1) 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") and approved by
Respondent no.1 under Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act on 30.10.2024.
4) The said detention order is based on the crimes registered
against the detenu in the last six months at Police Station, Hinganghat,
Dist. Wardha.
(i) C.R. no. 1390/2024, registered on 20/10/2024 for offences
punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(3), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
(ii) C.R. no. 972/2024, filed on 19/07/2024 for offences punishable
under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act.
(iii) C.R. no. 835/2024, registered on 24/06/2024 for offences
punishable under Sections 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
(iv) C.R. no. 660/2024, filed on 17/05/2024 for offences
punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) C.R. no. 628/2024, registered on 15/05/2024 for offences
punishable under Sections 324, 427, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5) In crimes at Sr.no. (i) and (ii), the petitioner has been released
on notice u/s 35(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
while in the rest of the offences he had been released under Section
41(1) A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In Crime no.
927/2024, an iron dagger valued Rs.100/- and an Oppo company cell
phone worth Rs. 7000/-; total material worth Rs. 7100/- was seized.
Five times preventive actions were taken against the petitioner u/sec 56
(1)(A).
6) Some of the grounds challenging the said detention order, put
forth by the petitioner are as under:
(a) While passing the detention order, the detaining authority has
not considered the bail granted to the petitioner/detenu by the learned
Courts.
(b) While supplying the documents only the operative order has
been supplied to the detenu and no reasoning given by the learned
District & Sessions Judge, Hinganghat, Distt.Wardha, has been supplied
and therefore, the same has not been considered by the detaining
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
authority while passing the detention order.
(c) Delay in sending reference of the case of the petitioner/detenu
for review to the Advisory Board. The Board has not communicated any
further order to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner Adv.
Sawane has placed reliance upon the case of Abdul Sattaar Ibrahim
Manik vs. Union of India & others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
In a case where detenu is released on bail and is at
liberty at the time of passing the order of detention,
then the Detaining Authority has to necessarily rely
upon them as that would be vital ground for ordering
detention. In such a case the bail application and the
order granting bail should necessarily be placed before
the authority and the copies should be supplied to the
detenu".
7) The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further stated
that while granting the bail to the petitioner/detenu, the learned Courts
have considered the facet of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and released him on bail.
8) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr.S.S.Doifode,
supported the findings provided in the detention order and contradicted
to the submissions of the petitioner.
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
9) He submitted that even after getting bail, it is seen that the
petitioner again involved in the offences shown in the grounds of
detention. According to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by
the petitioner in ground no. II of this petition, the bail applications and
orders passed on it are placed by the police authority along with the
proposal that applications and orders were considered at the time of
passing the order of detention.
10) Learned A.P.P. further argued that, through video
conferencing the petitioner was personally heard by the Advisory Board
on 26.11.2024. It is further submitted that as per Section 11(4) of the
MPDA Act, the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report,
except that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory
Board is specified, shall be confidential and hence the contention of the
petitioner in view of such provision of the Act has no force.
11) It is to be noted from the impugned detention order that in
all five offences within the six months are considered for passing
the detention order. In all the cases, the deadly weapons are used.
In the cases, which are considered notices under Section 41-A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued and petitioner was not
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
arrested. The petitioner has raised the ground of non-consideration
of bail orders. As the petitioner was never arrested in the offences
which are considered, question of consideration of bail order does
not arise.
12) In this case, the petitioner has assaulted the complainant
Abhinav Sudhakar Hekne without any reason. He is a vegetable
vendor. The petitioner along with his friend asked the complainant
to give Rs.50,000/- otherwise, threatened to kill him and gave fists
and blows. When the complainant ran away, the petitioner called
his friend Akash and took him to Nagri Sahakari Bank and
withdrew the amount of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, again the
petitioner assaulted the complainant with fists and blows and gave
threats. The crime was registered on his complaint. Thereafter, the
notice was issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS.
13) The another offence being Crime No.972 of 2024
punishable under Section 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The
police received the information about the petitioner that he is
roaming with a dagger and abusing the persons in the said locality.
Thereafter, the police went on the spot and they found the
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
petitioner with one iron dagger, it was seized.
14) On 24/06/2024, Crime No. 835 of 2024 was registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 of the Indian
Penal Code. Again the petitioner had assaulted the complainant
without any reason and injured him. He was having something like
fighter. The notice was issued.
15) Crime No.660 of 2024 punishable under Section
324,504,506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. This
incident has been occurred in between the family members. The
petitioner had assaulted without any reason to his elder brother
with stones and bricks. The offence was registered. Notice was
issued to him.
16) The Crime No. 628 of 2024 punishable under Section 324,
427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant
was preparing for the entrance examination of Police Department.
The petitioner asked him not to stay there. Thereafter, the
petitioner assaulted him with cutter, fists and blows and thereafter,
with the iron rod. In this case, notice was issued.
17) Again on 17/04/2024,Crime No. 549 of 2024 punishable
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
under Section 4,25 Arms Act, r/w Section 142 of Maharashtra
Police Act was registered. He was found with sword and was
creating terror in public by abusing with the said sword.
18) Two statements of the witnesses also show that the
petitioner had created terror. When there was Navratri Utsav, he
was driving the motor cycle in a very rash and negligent manner.
When one person fell down and the witness went there to give the
understanding to the petitioner, he had assaulted the petitioner by
taking out knife from his waist and created terror in the said area.
There was lunger. He threatened people who were in the queue for
lunger. He asked to stop the Bhajan and songs of Navratri by
threatening the people gathered there. The statement of witness 'B'
also shows that he had threatened the witness with sword stating
that why he has given information about sale of illicit liquor of his
father and created terror in the said area. After considering the
crimes and statements of witnesses it appears that in all the
offences, the petitioner had used the deadly weapons. In view of
the punishment being less than seven years, he was intimated that
he is required to be present in the Court at the time of submission
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
of the charge-sheet. If a person is roaming with sword in his hand
in public then prima facie, we can consider that it would raise
public order and not only law and order situation. In all the
offences, he had created terror in public. In two offences, he was
found with sword and dagger and was creating terror in public.
19) The statements of witnesses A and B would show that the
incident had taken place in the public and the said witnesses were
threatened and assaulted by the petitioner in public therefore, these
incidents and facts would certainly show that it is the public order
that was disturbed. At the cost of repetition, we would like to note
the fact that the petitioner was roaming in public by holding sword
in his hand. In all the five offences he had used deadly weapons
and the offences had occurred in public. He has not even spared
his family members. The statement of witnesses were verified by
the detaining authority. As the aforesaid subjective satisfaction has
been arrived at on the basis of the five offences, as well as two in-
camera statements, we do not find that this is to be a fit case where
we should exercise our Constitutional power to set aside the
detention order. We may also refer to the opinion that has been
Kavita
cri.wp 134 of 25.odt
given by the Advisory Board. The detention order has been
confirmed taking into consideration the opinion of the Advisory
Board as contemplated under law and therefore, we pass the
following order.
20) The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed.
21) Rule stands discharged.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/04/2025 17:26:33 Kavita
