Bombay High Court
Saksham Gautam Tate vs The State Of Maharashtra And Other on 8 September, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:23870-DB
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1079 OF 2025
Saksham s/o Gautam Tate
Age: 21 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o. Sanghsen Nagar, Itwara,
Nanded, Tq. And Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Section Officer,
Home Department (Special),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The District Magistrate,
Nanded, Tq. And Dist. Nanded.
3. The Superintendent of Jail,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Tq. And Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Suraj R. Bagal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 08 SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Suraj S. Bagal for the petitioner and
learned APP Mr. S. A. Gaikwad for respondents - State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally
with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
3. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 15.05.2025
bearing No.2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-25 passed by respondent
No.2 as well as the approval order dated 23.05.2025 and the
confirmation order dated 03.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1, by
invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the
impugned order and the material which was supplied to the petitioner by
the detaining authority after passing of the order. He submits that though
eight offences were registered against the petitioner, yet for the purpose
of passing the impugned order, only two offences were considered i.e.
Crime No.483 of 2024 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 3(5)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Crime No.440 of 2024 registered with
Itwara Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under
Sections 74, 78 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 8
and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
shot "POCSO Act"). In respect of Crime No.483 of 2024, the petitioner
came to be released on bail on 08.12.2024, whereas in Crime No.440 of
2024, he was granted anticipatory bail on 05.02.2025. It appears that
the sponsoring authority had made up its mind to take preventive action
against the petitioner and, therefore, it has recorded the statements of
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
in-camera witnesses 'A' and 'B' on 08.02.2025. Though in Crime No.483
of 2024, bail order was passed and in Crime No.440 of 2024,
anticipatory bail was granted, yet there is absolutely no consideration of
the said fact in the impugned order. There was no application of mind by
the learned District Magistrate while passing the impugned order. The
statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' at the most would create law and
order situation and at any point of time there was no question of
involvement of public order by the activities of the petitioner. The harsh
step ought not to have been taken. Further, it appears that in the past
preventive action was taken under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in 2022, but thereafter there was no such action by the police
authorities. The impugned order being illegal cannot be allowed to
sustain.
5. Per contra, the learned APP strongly supports the action taken
against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a dangerous
person as defined under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities
of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and
Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act"). The
detaining authority has relied on the two in-camera statements and the
subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. There is no illegality in the
procedure adopted while recording the in-camera statements of the
witnesses. Due to the terror created by the petitioner, people are not
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
coming forward to lodge report against him and, therefore, it affects the
public order. Learned APP relies on the affidavit of Mr. Rahul Kashinath
Kardile, the District Magistrate, Nanded, wherein the details have been
given as to what material which he has considered for holding the
petitioner as dangerous person as defined under M.P.D.A. It has been
stated by the learned District Magistrate that he had considered the two
offences and the in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B'. The
petitioner's age at present is 21 years and yet he is involved in eight
offences. Certainly, if his criminal activities are not curtailed by taking
harsh steps, the graph of his criminal activities would increase day by
day. The State Government is duty bound to protect the innocent citizens
from such criminal activities and, therefore, the action taken by the
learned District Magistrate is perfectly legal. The bail orders on record
and all the documents were considered before passing the impugned
order. The said order was then approved by the State Government and
then even the Advisory Board has upheld the same. Then the
confirmation of the said order has been ordered on 03.07.2025. The
petitioner was heard by the Advisory Board before granting approval.
6. At the outset, we would like to rely on the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nenavath Bujji etc. Vs. State of Telangana and
others, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 367] and Ameena Begum Vs. The
State of Tamilnadu and Ors., [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743]; wherein the
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
detention law has been summarized and has been said to be draconian
measure. Further, it has been observed that illegal detention orders
cannot be allowed to sustain and, therefore, strict compliance is required
to be made, as it is a question of liberty of a citizen. As aforesaid, out of
the eight offences involving the present petitioner, the learned District
Magistrate has considered two offences. While considering the offence
vide Crime No.483 of 2024 under Section 309(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, it can
be seen that the said FIR is against two unknown persons between the
age group of 25 to 30 years. Informant therein states that around 9.00
a.m. on 18.11.2024 when he was near Vasant Corner, two persons came
on motorcycle, they were unknown to him and by showing knife, they
snatched the bag containing cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned District
Magistrate has stated in the order that during investigation of the said
crime, the investigating officer has conducted panchanama of the scene
and recorded the statements of witnesses and then had arrested three
persons. Amount of Rs.80,000/ has been recovered from the accused.
Upon query, even the learned APP submits that the investigation papers
were not before the learned District Magistrate. In fact, in the order, in
paragraph No.3, the chart is given of the list of the offences, wherein
apart from the date of bail order, Court Case number has been
mentioned i.e. Regular Criminal Case No.567 of 2025 and the present
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
status is stated as Court pending. That means, the charge-sheet was
also filed as per the said chart, but then in the order, paragraph No.4.1
gives different picture. In the Marathi version of the said order, it is stated
that the said offence is still under investigation, whereas in English
version it is stated that the case is Court pending. With the help of
learned APP, we have confirmed the status online and he submits that
the charge-sheet was filed on 16.04.2025. Now, when the FIR was
against unknown persons, then whether the investigating officer has
taken the help of Executive Magistrate and carried out the Test
Identification Parade or not. Merely because some amount has been
recovered, it cannot be stated that there is involvement. In fact, when
the original papers have been produced before us, after going through
the same, we could see that there is only the reference of a report based
upon the statements of co-accused regarding the involvement of in all
three persons, who were arrested and then they revealed names of two
persons. The statement was then made that they had distributed the
said booty that was received. Further, it appears that the said report is by
Police Sub Inspector of Local Crime Branch, Nanded and it involves
three offences i.e. Crime No.383 of 2024 registered with Bhokar Police
Station, District Nanded, Crime No.483 of 2024 registered with Shivaji
Nagar Police Station, District Nanded and Crime No.312 of 2024
registered with Umri Police Station, District Nanded. All these offences
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
are under Sections 309(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
We have gone deep into this aspect just to see that whether the material
before the learned District Magistrate was sufficient to at least have an
impression that his involvement in the crime is prima facie shown.
Further, the learned District Magistrate has absolutely not considered the
bail order dated 08.12.2024, which was on record, wherein even the
conditions were imposed on the petitioner. As regards Crime No.440 of
2024 also it can be seen that though the FIR is against the petitioner by
name, yet he was released on anticipatory bail by a competent Court on
05.02.2025. Now, when bail orders have been passed by the competent
Court, the learned District Magistrate should go through the same and
consider that the ordinary criminal law will not be sufficient to curtail the
activities. We would like to rely on the decision in Joyi Kitty Joseph Vs.
Union of India and Ors., [Criminal Appeal No.___ of 2025 (arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.16893 of 2024) decided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.03.2025], wherein it has been held that
"when bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions,
the detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were
sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities,
which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered." Further, in
view of the decisions in Nenavath Bujji (Supra) and Ameena Begum
(Supra), we would say that both the offences at the most have created
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
the law and order situation and the offences involved were against the
individuals. There was no question of public order involved in the same.
7. Perusal of the statements of in-camera witnesses 'A' and 'B' would
show that the incidents in both the cases are personal in nature and
general public is not involved. Those statements would have created at
the most law and order situation and not the public order.
8. Thus, taking into consideration the above observations and the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, at the most, the statements as well
as the offences allegedly committed would reveal that the petitioner had
created law and order situation and not disturbance to the public order.
Though the Advisory Board had approved the detention of the petitioner,
yet we are of the opinion that there was no material before the detaining
authority to categorize the petitioner as a dangerous person or
bootlegger.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, following order is passed :-
ORDER
I) The Writ Petition is allowed.
II) The detention order dated 15.05.2025 bearing No.2025/RB-
1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-25 passed by respondent No.2 as well as
WP-1079-2025-j.odt
the approval order dated 23.05.2025 and the confirmation order
dated 03.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1, are hereby quashed
and set aside.
III) Petitioner - Saksham s/o Gautam Tate shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
IV) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
