Bombay High Court
Pramod @ Laba Bhalchandra Ingle vs The Commissioner Of Police Solapur on 6 February, 2017
Author: V.K.Tahilramani
Bench: V.K.Tahilramani, Revati Mohite Dere
jdk 1 12.crwp.3345.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3345 OF 2016
Shri. Pramod @ Laba Bhalchandra ]
Ingle, Age 37 years, residing at ]
H.No.129, Milind Nagar,Budhwar Peth ]
Solapur (At present lodged in ]
Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.) ].. Petitioner/Detenu
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police ]
Solapur. ]
]
2. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Addl. Chief Secretary, ]
to Govt. of Maharashtra, ]
Home Department, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai. ]
]
3. The Superintendent, ]
Yerawada Central Prison, Pune ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Udaynath Tripathi Advocate for Petitioner
Mrs. M.H. Mhatre A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 06, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 15:47:21 ::: jdk 2 12.crwp.3345.16.j.doc learned A.P.P. for the State.
2 The petitioner / detenu Pramod @ Laba Bhalchandra Ingle has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 30.07.2016 by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment- 1996 and 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act") as the detenu is a dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said detention order is based on one C.R. i.e. CR No. 254 of 2016 of Jodbhavi Peth Police Station, Solapur and two incamera statements of witness "A" and witness "B". The order of detention, grounds of detention along with accompanying documents were served on the detenu on 30.7.2016. 3 Though a number of grounds have been raised in the present petition whereby the detention order has been 2 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 15:47:21 ::: jdk 3 12.crwp.3345.16.j.doc assailed, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed only three grounds before us. They are grounds 5(a), 5(f) and 5(i). As we are inclined to allow the petition on the basis of ground 5(f), we do not feel it necessary to deal with the remaining grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4 Ground 5(f) reads as under:
"5(f). With reference to para 5(b) of the grounds of detention that the allegations made in the said para are vague and baseless. The petitioner says and submits that the averment made in para 5(b) of the grounds of detention that 'there is a constant demand from traders and general public to curb your criminal activities' the detenu says that there are no letters and / or complaints from traders and / or member of public of Solapur to justify this averment. The said averment is vague and baseless. This shows non- application of mind of the detaining authority. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside."
3 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 15:47:21 ::: jdk 4 12.crwp.3345.16.j.doc 5 In reply the detaining authority has stated that witness "A" in his statement has specifically mentioned that there is a constant demand from businessmen in that area to curb the criminal activities of the detenu. Learned A.P.P. also drew our attention to the statement of incamera witness "A" wherein the witness has stated that in the said area, there is a constant demand by businessmen to curb the criminal activities of the detenu. Thus, it is seen that as far as the averments which witness "A" has made in his statement, it does not relate to a constant demand by general public but it only refers to a constant demand only by traders. Thus, as far as "constant demand by general public" is concerned, there is no material before the detaining authority to arrive at his subjective satisfaction that "constant demand" was being made by the "general public". As far as the demand by traders is concerned, it is seen that neither the concerned police station nor any police official including the Commissioner of Police has received any complaint or letter from any trader that the criminal activities of the detenu need to be curbed. The statement of witness "A" also does not show that any trader or any member of general public has made any constant demand 4 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 15:47:21 ::: jdk 5 12.crwp.3345.16.j.doc to the police that the criminal activities of the detenu should be curbed. If complaint of such a nature would be made, it would be made to police station or any other police official including the Commissioner of Police and there is no material to show that any such complaint or letter or communication was received by any police authority. The relevant averment has been made in paragraph 5(b) of the grounds of detention. The said portion of para 5(b) reads thus:
" However, you are an armed desperado and dangerous criminal, most of the victims are not willing to complain against you out of fear but there is a constant demand from traders and general public to curb your criminal activities. The normal law of the land has failed to curb and not enough to stop your criminal activities".
It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has clearly stated that "I hereby communicate to you the grounds as mentioned in paragraph No.5, 5(a-1), 5(b), 5(b)(i) and 5(b)(ii) below on which a detention order has been made by me on this day against you".
6 Thus, the fact that there was a constant demand by traders and the general public to curb the activities of the detenu was one of the grounds relied upon by the detaining 5 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 15:47:21 ::: jdk 6 12.crwp.3345.16.j.doc authority to issue the order of detention. However, it is seen that no such complaint of any trader or any member of the general public was received by any police authority. Thus, there was no material before the detaining authority to arrive at his subjective satisfaction that there was a constant demand by traders and general public to curb the criminal activities of the detenu. Thus, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in this regard is without any material placed before the detaining authority. The subjective satisfaction is based on extraneous material, copies of which have not been furnished to the detenu. In such case, such subjective satisfaction would vitiate the order of detention. 7 In view of the above, the order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. Detenu - Pramod @ Laba Bhalchandra Ingle be released from prison, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] kandarkar 6 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 15:47:21 :::