Bombay High Court
Amjad Khan S/O Sardar Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra, District ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:5125-DB
cri.wp-0239-25.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.239 OF 2025
1 Amjad Khan s/o Sardar Khan
Age about 32 years, Occ- Business,
r/o Arun Layout, Vasant Nagar,
Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. Petitioner
(At Present in Nagpur Central Prison)
-Versus-
1. State of Maharashtra
District Magistrate, Respondents
Dist. Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through Under Secretary
Home Department (Special)
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Tiwari Rajesh Kantaprasad, counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, A.P.P. for R-1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 08/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
1) Heard.
2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Criminal Writ
Petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
3) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the detention order dated
Kavita
cri.wp-0239-25.odt
18.07.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 and confirmation order
dated 29.07.2024 issued by Respondent No.2 under the
provisions 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 the "MPDA Act"), is filing the instant writ petition
in order to challenge the legality of the orders mentioned
hereinabove.
4) It appears from the detention order that a total of two crimes
and two in-camera statements have been taken into account to
detain the petitioner as a 'dangerous person'. The crimes which
have been considered, have been committed within the last six
months as under:
(i) Crime No. 03/2024, filed at Vasantnagar Police Station
under Section 3 and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
(ii) Crime No. 78/2024, filed at Umarkhed Police Station under
Section 3 and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
5) The petitioner stands against the order of detention by
emphasizing on the following grounds -
(a) That, the offences taken into consideration by Respondent
No.1 are purely characterized by individuality and they nowhere
point towards affecting the even tempo of life of public at large,
hence, the detaining authority lost sight of the fact that there has
been no breach of public order.
Kavita
cri.wp-0239-25.odt
(b) That, there is no evidence to show the involvement of the
petitioner in the crimes taken into consideration by the detaining
authority.
6) The counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Kantaprasad submits
that, the in-camera statements are bereft of the details with
regards to the time, date, place of the incidents. Furthermore, it
has been submitted that the in-camera statements have not been
properly verified by the concerned authority. Moreover, it is
submitted that the statements came to be recorded a few months
prior to the passing of the detention order, and, the Police Officer
did not record his satisfaction regarding the truthfulness of the in-
camera statements. Hence, the subjective satisfaction reached at
by the detaining authority is questioned.
7) The petitioner further submitted that there has been a
significant delay in passing the detention order, as, Crime No.
03/2024 and Crime No. 78/2024 came to be registered on
04.01.2024 and 13.02.2024 respectively and the in-camera
statements were recorded on 09.03.2023 and 14.03.2023
whereas the detention order came to be passed on 18.07.2024
which snaps the live-link between the crimes committed,
recording of the statements and the detention order. Hence, the
detention order is vitiated on this ground.
8) On the other hand, the Learned A.P.P has filed an affidavit-
in-reply on behalf of Respondent No.1 vehemently denying the
contentions made by the petitioner.
Kavita
cri.wp-0239-25.odt
9) The respondent submits that since the year 2019, the
petitioner has been engaging in committing crimes such as
attempt to murder, causing bodily injury and carrying a
dangerous weapon, gun (desi katta) around and threatening to
kill people which has been mentioned in the grounds of
detention. It is the contention of the respondent that such
activities of the petitioner has caused great harm to the public and
is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence, the
detaining authority has rightly detained the petitioner as a
dangerous person.
10) It is the stance of the Respondent No.1 that, the
confidential witnesses 'A' and 'B' gave their statements on
09.03.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively before the Police
Inspector, Police Station, Vasantnagar Pusad, after which the
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub-Division, Umarkhed, Dist.
Yavatmal, personally verified these statements on 21.03.2024.
Thereafter, the detaining authority personally consulted with the
Police Officer, who recorded the statements and the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer regarding the proposal and passed the
detention order on 18.07.2024. Hence, it is submitted by the
Respondent No.1 that the detaining authority, after being
subjectively satisfied about the truthfulness of the statements
made by the confidential witnesses, along with the criminal
activities of the petitioner, passed the detention order, hence, the
detention order is appropriate in the eyes of law.
11) On perusal of the record it appears that the offences which
are considered for passing of the detention order are under
Kavita
cri.wp-0239-25.odt
Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. Notices under Section 41-A of
the Act were issued. Offence bearing Crime No.3 of 2024 is
committed on 03/01/2024 and 78 of 2024 is registered on
18/02/2024. The order of detention is passed on 18/07/2024.
The ground of delay in passing the detention order is raised by
the petitioner. There is no explanation why there is delay from
last offence, which is committed on 13/02/2024 and the order of
detention is passed on 18/07/2024.
12) No doubt, the time starts to run from recording of the
statement and its verification. Two statements which are
considered for passing the detention order are recorded before
one year i.e. on 09/03/2023 and 14/03/2023. It appears that it is
signed by the witnesses in Police Station on 21.03.2024 i.e. after
more than a year. The statements are even verified after recording
the statements. The statements are recorded on 09/03/2023 and
14/03/2023 by P.I.Vasant Nagar Police Station. It is verified by
the detaining authority on 21/03/2024. There is delay in
recording and verification of statements of confidential witness A.
Statement of confidential witness B is recorded on 14/03/2023
and it was verified on 21/03/2024. The contents in both the
statements are of general nature. The general character of the
petitioner is mentioned by both these witnesses. Identical
statements are made by both the witnesses and there is delay.
About consideration of identical statements, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the recent judgment in the case of Arjun Ratan Gaikwad
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors arising out of SLP (Cri.)
No.12516 of 2024 in paragraph No.17 of the said judgment has
Kavita
cri.wp-0239-25.odt
observed as under:-
17. "Insofar as the statement of the two
unnamed witnesses are concerned, the
allegations are as vague as it could be. In any
case the statements which are 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 villages which would
create a perception in the mind of the
villagers that the appellant herein is a threat
to the public order".
13) Considering the above said observations, the statements
are not reliable and the detention order cannot be passed
considering said statements. The delay is not explained by the
respondents, as there is no live-link in statements and in the order
of passing of detention order. Considering the nature of the
offence, no law and order situation is there. Therefore, the
detention order passed by the detaining authority is required to
be quashed and set aside.
14) Hence, we pass the following order.
15) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of its prayer clauses
(a) and (b). The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other crime.
16) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade (MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J)
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/05/2025 10:50:43 Kavita
