Bombay High Court
Avinash Gopal Shilimkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 November, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:48971-DB
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 15708 OF 2025
Avinash Gopal Shilimkar
Age : 23 years
Residing at Samarth Complex,
Flat No.11, Pokale Wasti, Dhayari,
Pune and at presently detained in
Akola Central Prison. ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary
to Government of Maharashtra,
Home Department (Special), Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Pune City, Pune at the instance of
Sinhgad Police Station, Pune
in C. R. No.664/2024
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Akola District Prison. ... Respondents
______________________
Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State.
______________________
Digitally
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
signed by
SANJAY RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
SANJAY KASHINATH
KASHINATH NANOSKAR
NANOSKAR Date:
2025.11.14
19:26:43 RESERVED ON : 12th NOVEMBER 2025
+0530
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th NOVEMBER 2025
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
JUDGMENT [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J] :-
1) By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner seeks quashing of the Order of Detention dated 26th December,
2024, being O. W. No. CRIME PCB/DET/NANDED CITY/SHILIMKAR/1041/
2024 (Detention Order) passed by the Respondent No.2, under Section 3(2)
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 ("MPDA Act") and of the Committal Order of even date whereby the
Petitioner has been detained in the Akola District Prison, Akola. The
Petitioner prays that, he be released and set at liberty.
2) By an Order dated 2nd May 2025, this Court has issued Rule in the
petition. The Respondent Authorities have filed their Affidavits-in-Reply,
wherein they have opposed the Petition on various grounds.
3) Heard Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.
Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. Perused the Affidavits-in-reply filed
by the Respondents and the record before us.
4) Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has
raised various grounds in the Petition for challenging the Detention Order but
has restricted his arguments to only one ground i.e. that the in-camera
statements should be verified by the Detaining Authority itself. Learned
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, in-camera statement of witness 'A'
and witness 'B', have been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Sinhgad Road Division, Pune City. He submits that, the Detaining Authority,
has only seen, the verification for both in-camera statements. He submits
that, the in-camera statements should be personally verified by the Detaining
Authority himself. In the alternative, he submits that, in-camera statements
ought to be verified jointly by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the
Detaining Authority. He submits that, the Detaining Authority should have at
least personally verified the in-camera statements by speaking/having a
dialogue with the Assistant Commissioner of Police. That, the fact of the in-
camera statements been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is not
mentioned in the Detention Order.
4.1) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameena Begum vs. The State of
Telangana & Ors., arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.8510 of 2023, dated 4 th
September, 2023 and whilst referring to Paragraph No.16 of the said
Judgment submitted that, the Detaining Authority must satisfy the Court that,
it acted in accordance with the law. That, while passing the Detention Order
the requirements of the law have to be strictly observed and that, in the event
there is a slightest breach in following the requirements of the law, this Court
should not hesitate to strike down the Order of Detention. In short, learned
Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, in-camera statements ought to have
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
been personally verified by the Detaining Authority. On this ground, he calls in
question the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and submits
that the same is vitiated.
5) Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State submits that, the
Detention Order dated 26th December, 2024 has in fact relied upon and
referred to the in-camera statements in the Detention Order. That, both the in-
camera statements have been enclosed with the grounds of Detention and
provided to the Petitioner. That, the gist of the in-camera statements is stated
in the Detention Order. That, the in-camera statements have been verified by
the Assistant Commissioner of Police and a report to that effect has been
forwarded to the Detaining Authority. The same is enclosed with the grounds
of detention and served upon the Petitioner. Learned APP relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Shaw vs.
District Magistrate, Burdwan and Anr., reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court
334 and submit that, it would not be open to the detenu to ask the court to
consider as to whether the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority
can be justified by the application of the objective test. That, the
reasonableness of the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority cannot be
questioned. That, the Detention order is well founded and the in camera
statements have been properly verified by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police. That, the Detaining Authority has considered the entire proposal, the
verification and the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police on
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
verification etc and arrived at its subjective satisfaction.
6) We have considered the arguments advanced before us and
minutely perused the Grounds of Detention, the report of the Assistant
Commissioner of Police and the verification of in-camera statements. Perusal
of it, indicates that, the in-camera statements have been properly and
personally verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and that the said
fact is also stated in the Grounds of Detention. It is an admitted position that,
both the in-camera statements alongwith the verification by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police has been enclosed with the grounds of Detention and
served upon the Petitioner. This is obviously done with an object of ensuring
that, the Petitioner has been informed of and is aware of the grounds of
detention and has with him all the material which is relied upon/used, in
support of the Detention Order.
7) We have minutely perused the verification of both the in-camera
statements. We note that, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has personally
interacted with the witnesses, confirmed that the statements have been given
without any fear or pressure and are voluntarily. We have also noted that, the
Assistant Commissioner of Police has personally visited the spot of incidence
and made enquiries with the persons residing in the said area/vicinity and
with the shopkeepers, who have confirmed the incidents, which have been
narrated in the in-camera statements. As noted earlier, both the in-camera
statements and the verifications have been forwarded by the Assistant
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
Commissioner of Police, as a part of the report to the Detaining Authority. The
report enclosed with the grounds of detention, has been served upon the
Petitioner.
8) The Detaining Authority, before giving approval to the proposal,
himself considers all the documents which are relied upon including the in-
cameral statements and the verifications thereof. In the grounds of Detention,
the Detaining Authority has specifically noted and acknowledged the fact that,
he has seen the verification of the in camera statements. Further, the
Detaining Authority in Paragraph No. 6 of the grounds of Detention has
specifically recorded that, the Senior Police Inspector of Nanded City Police
Station has conducted the confidential inquiry and recorded in-camera
statements. Further, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sinhagad Road
Division, Pune City has verified the said in-camera statements and the
statements of the witnesses revealed the recent criminal activities of the
Petitioner classifying him as a 'dangerous person', were prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The grounds of Detention specifically records
that, the in camera statements of the witnesses except the identifying
particulars are enclosed therewith, to enable the Petitioner to make an
effective representation. The Detention Order in Paragraph No 9 specifically
records as required under Section 8 of the MPDA Act read with Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India, the grounds on which Detention Order is based
have been communicated alongwith copies of the documents, which were
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
placed before the Detaining Authority, except identifying particulars of the
witnesses, which cannot be furnished to the Petitioner in public interest under
Clause 8(2) of the MPDA Act read with Article 22(6) of the Constitution of
India.
9) We have also noted the fact that, in Paragraph No. 9 of the
Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police has verified the truthfulness and genuineness of the
incidents, narrated in the in-camera statements of witness 'A' and 'B' and
submitted a report. In the said report, the Assistant Commissioner of Police
has mentioned that the facts given in the statements are true. The Detaining
Authority further specifically states that, after perusing the said report and
statements, the Detaining Authority is satisfied that, the facts given in the
statements and apprehension entertained by witness 'A' and 'B' are true and
reasonable.
10) We would also make useful reference to the Judgment of this
Court in the case of Shri. Nagnarayan Saryu Singh Vs. Shri. A. N. Roy & Ors.,
reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2147 , wherein in Paragraph No. 20, this Court
has made following observations that;
"Moreover, it would be pertinent to note that the decision in the
case of Pradip Nilkanth Paturkar (supra), was rendered in the
year 1992. At that time, in camera statements which were
recorded by the sponsoring authority were not verified by an
Assistant Commissioner of Police as is done nowadays. All the in
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
camera statements recorded by the sponsoring authority
nowadays are verified by the Officer of the rank of the Assistant
Commissioner of Police. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
verifies the identity of the person making the statement i.e. the in
camera witnesses are indeed real persons and not fictitious
persons. After making enquiries with the in camera witnesses
when the Assistant Commissioner of Police is satisfied about the
genuineness of the statement made by the witness, he certifies
the said in camera statement. The very purpose of an officer of
the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police verifying the
statements of in camera witnesses is to lend assurance that the
statements can be safely relied upon. Unless the in camera
witnesses had indeed suffered at the hands of the detenu, there
would be no reason for these persons to come forward and give
statements against the detenu. In our view, verification of in
camera witnesses by an Officer of the rank of the Assistant
Commissioner of Police would provide a sufficient check & would
lend sufficient assurance that the statements are genuine."
11) We are in the agreement with the aforesaid observations, in as
much as the verification of the in-camera statements is undertaken by an
officer above the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. The same is done
to ensure, confirm and re-verify that, the in-camera statements recorded by
the Sponsoring Authority are true, correct and genuine. This in our opinion, is
a necessary and sufficient check to rule out the implication and/or
harassment. It would not be necessary for the Detaining Authority to
personally verify the in-camera statements, as is sought to be contended by
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
the Petitioner. The necessary procedure followed, to ensure compliance of the
requirement of law is that; (i) the in-camera statements are first recorded by
the sponsoring Authority; (ii) then, they are personally verified by a senior,
responsible officer i.e Assistant Commissioner of Police; (iii) the process as
carried out by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is reported to the
Detaining Authority; (iv) the in-camera statements and verification form a
part of the report of the Assistant Commissioner addressed to the Detaining
Authority; (v) the Detaining Authority personally goes through/sees, checks
and re-confirms/verifies the entire proposal alongwith all the documents
which are relied upon and form part of the detention proposal, including the
report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the in-camera statements, the
verifications done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In our view, as
stated in the judgment of Shri. Nagnarayan Saryu Singh (Supra) this process
would provide a sufficient check and would lend sufficient credence to and
assurance that the in-camera statements are true and genuine. We are of the
view that, the verification of the in-camera statements by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police is in accordance with the procedure and complies with
the requirement of law. The verification of the in-camera statements, by a
officer of the rank of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, is sufficient
compliance and also ensures compliance of the procedural safeguards in
preventive detention matters. It is not the requirement of law, that the in-
camera statements have to be personally verified by the Detaining Authority.
Mahesh Chavan WP-2403-2025.doc
In view thereof, it is not necessary that the verification of the in-camera
statements has to be personally done by the Detaining Authority.
12) Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion that, the Order of Detention has been properly passed and the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is on the basis of
relevant material and documents, which have all been admittedly supplied to
the Petitioner.
13) In light of the aforesaid observations and findings, we do not find
any merits in the ground of challenge urged by the Petitioner and therefore,
the Petition deserves to be dismissed.
13.1) The Petition is dismissed.
13.2) Rule is accordingly discharged.
13.3) In view of disposal of Petition, Interim Application (St.)
No.15708/2025 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
