Bombay High Court
Aman @ Aman Jamir Shaikh vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 15 October, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:44876-DB
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1717 OF 2025
Aman @ Amaan Jamir Shaikh
Age : 23 years, Occ.: Labour,
R/o. Flat No.6, 'C' Wing,
Tangewal Society, Shankar Nagar
Pune. ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Pune City, Pune.
2. The State of Maharashtra
(Through The Ld. Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mumbai.)
3. The Superintendent,
Akola Central Prison, Akola. ... Respondents
______________________
Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Digitally
______________________
signed by
SANJAY
SANJAY KASHINATH
KASHINATH NANOSKAR
NANOSKAR Date: CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
2025.10.15
15:06:21
+0530
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th SEPTEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th OCTOBER 2025
JUDGMENT [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J] :-
1) By the present Petition, the Petitioner has invoked the Writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
India, seeking quashing of the Order of Detention dated 21 st October 2024,
being No.Crime/PCB/DET/SAHAKARNAGAR/ SHAIKH/ 843/2024 (Detention
Order) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, Pune i.e the
Respondent No.1, 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"). The Petitioner
being detained under the said Detention Order, seeks a direction for being
released and set at liberty.
2) By an Order dated 7th April 2025, this Court has issued Rule in
the petition. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City i.e Respondent No.1 has
filed a detailed Affidavit-in reply dated 9th May 2025 dealing with the various
contentions/grounds and opposed the Petition. The Superintendent, Akola
District Prison Class-1, Akola i.e Respondent No.3 has also filed an Affidavit-
in-reply dated 10th April 2025 opposing the Petition.
3) Heard Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner and Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, learned In-charge Public Prosecutor
appearing for the Respondents. Perused the record, the Affidavits in reply,
filed by the Respondents and considered the decisions as cited and relied upon
by the Advocates appearing for the parties.
4) At the very outset, we may note that, though the Petitioner has
raised various grounds in the Writ Petition for challenging the Detention
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
Order dated 21st October 2024 passed by the Respondent No.1, the learned
Advocate for Petitioner has restricted his arguments to only two grounds,
which are as under:-
i) The Detaining Authority, after stating that the two offences
mentioned in paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and the two in camera statements in
paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 are only considered/relied upon for passing the
Detention Order has proceeded to rely upon the past offences/preventive
actions mentioned in paragraph Nos.3.1 and 3.2 respectively for arriving at
the subjective satisfaction as required under law; and
ii) The two offences referred to in paragraph Nos. 5.1 and 5.2 and
the two in camera statements referred to in paragraph Nos. 6.1 and 6.2, do
not constitute an offence/act which is in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of Public Order. At the most, the same would be a law and order
issue, which can be effectively dealt with by invoking the existing laws.
5) A perusal of the record indicates that the Detention Order and
Committal Order are both dated 21st October 2024. The grounds of detention
indicate that the Detention Order is based on two offences, as mentioned in
paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and two in-camera statements summarized in
paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 (said offences and statements). The details of the
said 2 offences are as under;
i) Offence registered with the Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune
being Crime No.254/2024, under Sections 324(1), 342(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
Sanhita, 2023, Section 4(25) of Arms Act, and under Sections 34(1)/135, 142
of MPA and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.
ii) Offence registered with the Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune
being Crime No.255/2024, under Section 4(25) of Arms Act and Sections
34(1)/135, 142 of MPA.
6) It is the case of the Respondents, that based on the said offences
and statements the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective
satisfaction that, the Petitioner is "Dangerous Person" as defined under Section
2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, and the Petitioner has unleashed a reign of terror and
has become a perpetual danger to the society at large in the area of
Sahakarnagar Police Station of Pune City.
7) The first ground urged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner
is that, the Detaining Authority, after stating that the two offences mentioned
in Paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and the two in camera statements in paragraph
Nos.6.1 and 6.2 are only considered/relied upon for passing the Detention
Order has proceeded to rely upon the past offences/preventive actions
mentioned in paragraph Nos.3.1 and 3.2 for arriving for the subjective
satisfaction as required under the MPDA Act. It is on the basis of this ground
that, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner seeks to challenge the Detention
Order. The said offences are past/stale offences which cannot be the basis for
passing the present Detention Order.
8) Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner in support of the
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
above contention relied upon the Order dated 21 st March 2025 passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 311 of 2025 in the matter
of Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
9) The second ground urged by the learned Advocate for Petitioner
is that, in Crime No.254 of 2024 registered by Sahakar Nagar Police Station,
under Sections 324(1), 342(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 it is alleged
that, the Petitioner committed the act of mischief and caused loss and damage
to the vehicles. Though, it is alleged in said FIR that, the Petitioner shattered
window glasses of vehicles, but not a single piece/ pieces of broken glass were
recovered from the alleged spot of incident. Learned Advocate for the
Petitioner placed reliance on the contents of spot panchnama and submitted
that, there is no recovery of any shattered glass/broken pieces of glass from
the spot. Therefore, the FIR cannot be relied upon. Learned Advocate further
submits that, in both the crimes i.e. C. R. No.254 of 2024 and C. R. No.255 of
2024, default bail was granted to the Petitioner by the learned 13 th Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pune vide Order dated 3 rd October 2024. That, there
were no efforts or any insistence on behalf of the Investigating Authorities/
Respondents to impose any conditions upon the Petitioner in the Order
granting bail. That, the offences and statements relied upon against the
Petitioner do not demonstrate nor are indicative of the fact that, any act of the
Petitioner, is in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Learned Advocate in support of above contentions, relies upon the decision of
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Naznee V/s. State of
Telangana & Ors., reported in (2023) 9 Supreme Court Cases 633. Learned
Advocate would submit that, the alleged infractions of law are an outcome of
private dispute pertaining to few individuals and not affecting the public or
society as a whole. The said infractions, are minor, do not have any
resemblance to an act of breach of public order and can be effectively dealt
with by the ordinary laws of the land. At the highest, the said alleged offences
and statements attributed to the Petitioner, only affect the law and order and
cannot be termed to be as acts prejudicial to the maintenance of the public
order. Learned Advocate further submits, as the Petitioner has been released
on default bail, there is absolutely no need to invoke the extraordinary powers
under the preventive detention laws. Learned Advocate therefore submitted
that, in view of the aforesaid submissions, the Detention Order be quashed
and set aside and the Petitioner be released from jail.
10) In reply to the first ground, Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, learned in-
charge Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submits that, Respondent
No.1 has infact relied only upon said offences in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 and
in camera statements in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 in the grounds of detention to
issue the Detention Order. She submits that, Respondent No.1 is within his
authority and power to refer to past instances of a detenu, so as to bring on
record the background, history and past offences/activities of a detenu, which
are opposed and/or in violation of a law.
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
11) Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, in support of her submissions, placed
reliance upon (i) the Judgment and Order dated 18 th December 2019 passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Khaja Bilal Ahmed Versus State
of Telangana, reported in (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 632 and (ii) the
Judgment and Order dated 20 th January 2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition
No.2672 of 2022 in the matter of Ram @ Pappu Arun Kore Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors.
Mrs. Deshmukh whilst relying upon para 23 of the judgment of
Khaja Bilal Ahmed V/s State of Telangana (Supra) submitted that, in the
absence of a clear indication of a causal connection a mere reference to
pending criminal cases cannot account for the requirement of Section 3 of
MPDA. At the same time, only a reference to the past offences or preventive
actions without placing any reliance on the same to arrive at the required
subjective satisfaction is permitted and within the authority of the Respondent
No.1. She further placed reliance on paragraph 14 of the Judgment and Order
dated 20th January 2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2672 of 2022 in
the matter of Ram @ Pappu Arun Kore Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors to
submit that, reference to past cases may be made to bring out the past
offences and preventive actions and the same is not prohibited, but the order
of detention ought to be based only on offences having a direct nexus or link
with the immediate need to detain an individual. She further submitted that
in the present case the impugned Detention Order, only refers to past offences
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is based only on the
cases/offences referred in paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and in-camera
statements referred in paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention
and nothing more.
12) In reply to the second ground, Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, submits
that, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is based
on the said offences and statements. She further submits that, the two cases
relied upon in the Grounds of Detention clearly indicate that, the Petitioner
had damaged vehicles on the road, created ruckus by shouting loudly, used
deadly weapons to threatened and assaulted persons from the general public
and had broken windows of the vehicles parked on public roads. The
Petitioner has, with dangerous weapons openly threatened the people on the
road. Further, whilst referring to the statement of Witness "A" referred to in
Paragraph No. 6.1 of the Grounds of Detention, she submits that, the
Petitioner threatened the witness with Gupti (sword stick), by putting it on
her neck and demanded Rs.5,000/- from her, for a party. Due to the said
acts/conduct the general public was scared and terrified. The Petitioner
slapped and his accomplices beat the witness with fists and kicks blows. The
Petitioner while leaving, threatened to kill the witness, if she made any
complaint to police. She further submits that, Witness "B" in Paragraph No.6.2
has stated that, the Petitioner abused and threatened, the witness, who is a
fruit vendor and demanded fruits from the said witness. She further submits
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
that, when the said witness demanded the price of Rs.200/- for the said fruits,
the Petitioner slapped the witness, abused him in filthy language and told him
that all vendors in the area give him protection money (Hafta) and if he wants
to do business, he will have to give protection money (Hafta) to the Petitioner.
Further, the Petitioner demanded Rs.1200/- from the said witness and told
him that he should give Rs.1,000/- per month as protection money (Hafta).
When the witness showed his inability to pay the money, the Petitioner took
out Koyta (sickle) and assaulted witness, which was avoided by the witness as
he moved away. The Petitioner, by threatening the witness forcibly took
Rs.750/- from daily business collection of the witness, abused him and
threatened to cut him into pieces him if he complained anybody or told
anybody. Mrs. M M Deshmukh submits that the Detention Order is well
founded and clearly demonstrates that, the Petitioner, a dangerous person.
She submits that the Petitioner has unleashed terror and due to his conduct
and activities, has become a threat and danger to the society at large.
13) We have perused both the FIR's and in-camera statements. In C.R.
No.254 of 2025, it is case of the prosecution that, in the Tangewala Colony the
Petitioner and his accomplice were shouting loudly and armed with weapons
and stones ransacked people's rickshaws and a car which were parked on the
public road outside Gangatirth building(public place). When the people/
public questioned the Petitioner and his accomplice, they raised their weapons
and with stones in their hands, ran towards the people and shouted "Don't
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
you know us, we are the Bhai of the Tangewala colony, and we will not spare
a single one if you mess with us". Due to the said conduct and terror which
was created, the people ran to their houses. The Petitioner and his accomplice
further shouted and stated that "We are the bhai's of Tangewala Colony and
nobody should mess with us". This is our opinion is a clear threat to the public
at large Further, in C. R. No.255 of 2025, it is the case of the prosecution that,
the Petitioner was on the road from Bikaner Chowk to Aranyeshwar Road, in
front of Aranyeshwar Phase II society, was armed with a sharp weapon in his
hand and was shouting loudly. The Petitioner was detained with the help of
police personnel, and in presence of panch witnesses seized sharp weapon
(iron sword) from the Petitioner.
14) Further, Witness "A" has given a statement, wherein he has stated
that, on 29.7.2024 at around 7.30 pm when the witness was going home,
from Aranyeshwar Taware Colony area, she saw people running and
shopkeepers closing their shops. The witness states that, when she was trying
to leave the place, the Petitioner stopped her. At that time the Petitioner had a
Gupti in his hand and his accomplice who were drunk had weapons in their
hands. The witness states that, Petitioner put the gupti around the neck of the
witness and after abusing her demanded Rs 5000/- for a party. When the said
witness informed him that, she did not have the money, the Petitioner slapped
her due to which she fell down. The Petitioner's accomplices assaulted the
witness with kicks and fist blows. No one came to help the said witness due to
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
the Petitioner's fear and terror. Due to said conduct of the Petitioner, the
witness under fear gave Rs 200/- to the Petitioner. The witness states that, the
Petitioner while leaving with the money, threatened her that, if she complains
to the police he would kill her.
15) Witness "B", a fruit vendor in his statement, has stated that he is
acquainted with the Petitioner and that the Petitioner indulges in hooliganism,
bullies children in the area. The witness has stated that, on 31 st July 2024 at
around 8.15 pm, when he was closing his shop at Aranyeshwar, the Petitioner
came with his accomplices and was chitchatting with his friends. That, when
he looked at the Petitioner, he was threatened and abused by the Petitioner
and the Petitioner demanded fruits. After giving the fruits, when the witness
asked for the money, the Petitioner abused him and slapped him. That, the
Petitioner demanded protection money (Hafta). The Petitioner demanded Rs
1200/- on that day and further told the witness that, he is supposed to pay Rs
1000/- as monthly hafta, to the Petitioner. When the witness showed his
inability to pay the said hafta, the Petitioner took out a koyta from his waist
and assaulted the witness. The said assault was avoided by the witness by
moving away. The witness states that, the Petitioner's accomplices forcefully
took Rs 750/- from the witness. The Petitioner abused and threatened the
witness, by saying that the witness will have to give a protection money
(Hafta) to the Petitioner and that if he tells about this incident to anybody or
complains to anybody, he would be cut into pieces.
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
16) From the aforesaid offences and statements, it is clear that, the
Petitioner habitually threatened the general public by using dangerous
weapons and due to said conduct created an atmosphere of terror, a sense of
insecurity. Due to the said conduct of the Petitioner, the public in the area is
living under a shadow of constant fear, the people feel threatened and scared.
The conduct and acts of the Petitioner adversely affects the even tempo of life
and the public order and are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
17) As regards to the first ground raised by the learned Advocate for
the Petitioner, on a perusal of the Grounds of detention we find that, the
Respondent No.1 has only referred to past offences and preventive actions
taken against the Petitioner. In the Grounds of Detentions, the Respondent No.
1 has specifically stated that the past offences are "only referred" and that the
preventive actions have had "no deterrent effect on you". The Respondent No.
1 has further specifically stated in Paragraph 8 of the Grounds of Detention
that "Accordingly, I had relied upon material in Para 5.1; 5.2 & 6.1 and 6.2 of
the grounds of detention to arrive at my subjective satisfaction that you
.......". From the abovementioned specific references, it is clear that, the
Respondent No.1 has relied only on the two offences, mentioned in Paragraph
Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and the two in camera statements of witnesses mentioned in
Paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 and nothing more to arrive at the subjective
satisfaction that, the Petitioner is a 'dangerous person' as defined in Section
2(a)(iv) of MPDA Act and his criminal activities are prejudicial to
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
maintenance of public order. We find, that in the Grounds of Detention, it is
specifically recorded that while the offences in the preventive action
mentioned in Paragraph Nos. 3.1 and 3.2 have only been referred to show
that, the Petitioner is a habitual criminal involved in continuous criminal
activities and that preventive actions have no deterrent effect on the Petitioner
and in fact are insufficient to curtail Petitioner's dangerous activities, which
continued to show ascending trend.
18) In the case of Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana And
Others, (2020) 13 SCC 632 (Supra), in Paragraph No.23, it is held that, the
Order of Detention may refer to the previous criminal antecedents only, if they
have a direct nexus or link with immediate need to detain an individual. It is
further observed that, if the previous criminal activities of the detenu indicate
his tendency or inclination to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order, then it may have a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority. In the absence of a clear indication of a causal
connection, a mere reference to pending criminal cases is of no avail. A mere
reference to pending criminal cases cannot account for the requirement of
section 3 of the Act. What is important is that the detention order cannot be
based on stale, unrelated/unlinked acts.
19) In the present case, as observed by us earlier, the reliance to
arrive at the subjective satisfaction is based only on the two offences
mentioned in Paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and two in -camera statements in
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
Paragraph Nos. 6.1 and 6.2 and nothing more. Further, it would not be out of
place to mention here that, the Judgment of Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of
Telangana And Others, (2020) 13 SCC 632 (Supra) was also considered by
this Court in the matter of Shital alias Nitin Bhimrao Kharat V/s The District
Magistrate, Satara & Others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1816 of 2021
(Supra). This Court after considering the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, has observed that, an Order of Detention may refer to the previous
criminal antecedents only, if they have a direct nexus or link with the
immediate need to detain an individual. If the previous criminal activities
could indicate the individual's tendency or inclination to act in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then it may have a bearing on
the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. If, however, in the
absence of a clear indication of a causal connection, a mere reference to the
pending criminal cases cannot account for the necessary requirement of
section 3 of the MPDA Act. It is not open to the Detaining Authority to simply
refer to past/stale instances and base the Detention Order on that basis. It is
further observed that, the offences referred to in the said case did not show
the live link with the detenu's past activities.
20) We also note that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana And Others, (2020) 13 SCC 632
(Supra) and the Judgment of this Court in the matter of Shital alias Nitin
Bhimrao Kharat V/s The District Magistrate, Satara & Others in Criminal Writ
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
Petition No. 1816 of 2021 (Supra) have once again been considered by this
Court in its Judgment dated 20.01.2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition
No.2672 of 2022 in the matter of Ram @ Pappu Arun Kore Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors, wherein after considering the aforesaid judgments, it has
been held that, in absence of any clear indication of a causal connection, a
mere reference to the pending criminal cases cannot account for the necessary
requirement of section 3 of the Act. It is observed that, previous criminal
antecedents may be referred to only if they have a direct nexus or link with
the immediate need to detain an individual. We are of the opinion that, the
aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the present case in hand
before us. In the present case, it is clear that the Detaining Authority, has not
relied upon the past offences and preventive actions referred to in the
Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 and in view thereof the question of the past offences
or preventive actions having any live link or nexus does not and cannot arise.
The Detaining Authority specifically relies only on the offences mentioned in
Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 and in camera statements mentioned in Paragraphs
6.1 and 6.2.
21) As regards the Judgment dated 21st March 2025, in the case of
Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors in Writ
Petition No.311 of 2025, cited by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, we
are of the considered opinion that the same is per incuriam as the same has
not taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
case of Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana And Others or the aforesaid
Judgments of this Court i.e Judgment dated 16 th November, 2021 passed in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1816 of 2021 of this Court in the matter of Shital
alias Nitin Bhimrao Kharat V/s The District Magistrate, Satara & Others and
Judgment dated 20th January, 2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2672
of 2022 in the matter of Ram @ Pappu Arun Kore Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (cited supra). It appears to us that, the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Judgements of this Court
were not placed before the Coordinate Bench and the Petitioner in Writ
Petition No.311 of 2025 seems to have omitted to point out the correct facts
and law. Therefore, the decision in the case of Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors in Writ Petition No.311 of 2025 cannot be
said to be a binding precedent. In view thereof, the first ground canvased by
the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is devoid of merits and deserves to be
rejected.
22) As regards the second ground raised by the learned Advocate for
the Petitioner, that the said offences and statements are not against the public
and appear to be private/individualistic offences in nature and are not
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is made only to be rejected. On
a bare perusal of Paragraphs Nos.5 and 6 in the grounds of Detention and the
FIR's, it is clear that, the Petitioner's actions are in fact extremely dangerous
and also prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, disruptive of
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
public order, disturb the normal lives of the general public and even disturb
the even tempo of the society. From a bare perusal of the FIR's and statements,
it is clear that, the Petitioner habitually threatened the general public by using
dangerous weapons, assaulted them and due to said conduct created an
atmosphere of terror, a sense of insecurity in the minds of the public. It is clear
that the general public in the area is living under a shadow of constant fear,
threat and are scared. The C.R. No.254 of 2025, indicates that the Petitioner
at the Tangewala Colony was shouting loudly and breaking the glasses of the
vehicles parked on a public road. The Petitioner and his accomplice armed
with weapons and stones ransacked people's rickshaws and a car which were
parked on the public road. On being questioned by the people/public, the
Petitioner and his accomplice, armed with weapons and stones, ran towards
the people and shouted "Don't you know us, we are the Bhai of the Tangewala
colony, and we will not spare a single one if you mess with us". The conduct,
created terror and insecurity and people ran to their houses. The Petitioner
and his accomplice loudly threatened that "We are the bhai's of Tangewala
Colony and nobody should mess with us". Further, in C. R. No.255 of 2025, it
has been recorded that, the Petitioner armed with sharp weapon, while
standing on the road in front of Aranyeshwar Phase II society, was shouting
loudly. The Police personnel detained the Petitioner, and in presence of panch
witnesses seized the sharp weapon (iron sword) from him.
23) Further, the in camera statement of Witness A records that, on
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
29.7.2024 at around 7.30 pm when the witness was going home, she saw
people running and shopkeepers closing their shops. She was stopped by the
Petitioner. The Petitioner had a Gupti (sword stick) in his hand and his
accomplice were drunk and armed with weapons. The Petitioner put the gupti
around the neck of the witness, abusing her and demanded Rs 5000/- for a
party. When the said witness, showed her inability to pay, the Petitioner
slapped her due to which she fell down. The Petitioner's accomplices assaulted
the witness with kicks and fist blows. Due to the Petitioner's fear and terror no
one came to help the witness. The witness, under fear gave Rs 200/- to the
Petitioner. While leaving, the Petitioner threatened the witness that, if she
complains to the police he would kill her. Further, Witness B, in his statement
has stated that, he is acquainted with the Petitioner and that the Petitioner
indulges in hooliganism and bullies children in the area. The witness has
stated that, when he was closing his shop at Aranyeshwar, the Petitioner came
there with his accomplices and was chitchatting with his friends. When the
said witness looked at the Petitioner, the Petitioner threatened, abused him
and asked for fruits. After giving the fruits, when the witness demanded
money, the petitioner abused him and slapped him. The Petitioner demanded
protection money (Hafta). At that time, the Petitioner demanded Rs 1200/-
and further told the witness that, he is supposed to pay Rs 1000/- as monthly
hafta, to the Petitioner. When the witness showed his inability to pay the said
hafta, the Petitioner took out a koyta from his waist and assaulted the witness.
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
The said assault was avoided by the witness by moving away. Then the
Petitioner's accomplices forcefully took Rs 750/- from the witness. The
witness, was directed to give protection money (Hafta) to the Petitioner. The
Petitioner, threatened and abused the witness, that if he tells about this
incident to anybody or complains to anybody, he would be cut into pieces.
From the aforesaid facts and statements, it is evident and clear that, the
general public was scared and terrified due to the conduct and acts of the
Petitioner. The Petitioner and his accomplice were armed with dangerous
weapons, hurling abuses at the general public, shouting and threatening the
people. Due to the conduct of the Petitioner, an atmosphere of fear was
created in the minds of the public and shopkeepers. They closed their shops
on seeing the Petitioner and ran away/went home. The conduct and the acts
of the Petitioner, both cumulatively and individually seems to have terrorized
the atmosphere in the locality and the general public was scared, running
away, closing their shops/businesses and running to their houses. We are of
the considered opinion that, the acts and conduct of the Petitioner are such as
would disturb the public peace and harmony of the society and certainly
disturbs the even tempo of the society. It is apparent from the material relied
upon by the Detaining Authority that, the Petitioner has created an
atmosphere of terror and his acts and conduct is prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and adversely affect the maintenance of public
order. We find that, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining
Mahesh Chavan WP-1717-2025.doc
Authority is well founded, well placed and based on the material before it.
Hence, the submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner deserve to
be rejected.
24) It would not be out of place to make a reference to section 5A of
the MPDA Act, which provides that the grounds of detention are severable and
the order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each
of the grounds. Considering the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, assuming
that one of the ground/incident does not fall within the purview of public
order, the Impugned Order can still be sustained on the other
ground/incident. On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstance, the
Detaining Authority has concluded and arrived at its subjective satisfaction
that, Petitioner's detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in a
prejudicial manner affecting public order. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we do not find any substance in the submissions of the
Petitioner in support of his challenge to the Detention Order.
25) In light of the aforesaid observations and findings, we do not find
any merits in the grounds of challenge urged by the Petitioner and therefore,
the Petition deserves to be dismissed.
25.1) The Petition is dismissed.
25.2) Rule is accordingly discharged.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
