Bombay High Court
Prem Ramchandra Rathod vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 3 January, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Gauri Godse
2024:BHC-AS:149-DB
VARSHA VIJAY
Digitally signed by VARSHA
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date: 2024.01.03 18:45:14
+0530
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION(STAMP) NO. 20846 OF 2023
Prem Ramchandra Rathod
R/o. Pratap Nagar Tanda,
North Solapur, District Solapur
(Presently detained at Yerwada Central
Prison, Pune) ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Commissioner of Police, Solapur.
2. The State of Maharashtra
(Through Addl. Chief Secretary to
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai)
3. The Superintendent of Yerwada Central
Prison, Pune. ... Respondents
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi for the petitioner
Mrs. P. P. Shinde APP for the State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR ORDERS: 19th DECEMBER 2023
PRONOUNCED ON: 3rd JANUARY 2024
1/21
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 :::
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
JUDGMENT (PER: GAURI GODSE, J.) :-
1. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 25 th September 2023, passed by respondent no. 1- the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, in the exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 ('MPDA Act') for detaining the petitioner.
2. The aforesaid detention order is passed by relying upon three complaints registered against the petitioner vide CR No. 254 of 2023, dated 11th May 2023, CR No. 278 of 2023, dated 19th May 2023 and CR No. 286 of 2023, dated 22 nd May 2023. All three CRs are registered for the offences punishable under sections 392 and 34 of the IPC. In CR No. 254 of 2023, the complainant has alleged that the complainant's mother, aged 80 years, was returning along with her husband in an auto rickshaw and after they got out from the auto-rickshaw, three unknown 2/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx persons came on a motorcycle and snatched the mangalsutra of the complainant's mother. The said CR was registered against unknown persons. The detaining authority has recorded that while investigating CR No. 286 of 2023, the petitioner and his associate were arrested on 23rd May 2023, and in that CR, 3 mangalsutras were seized from the petitioner. It is further recorded that one Honda Activa motorcycle used to commit the offences was also seized from the possession of the petitioner's associates. During the investigation of the said CR No. 286 of 2023, it was revealed that the petitioner and his associates committed 3 offences of robbery in the month of May 2023, which were registered vide CR No. 254 of 2023, CR No. 278 of 2023 and CR No. 286 of 2023. The petitioner was arrested through a production warrant in connection with the said CR No. 254 of 2023.
3. Even in CR No. 278 of 2023 and Cr No. 286 of 2023, the allegation against the petitioner is of chain snatching. In connection with CR No. 278 of 2023, the petitioner was 3/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx arrested on 8th June 2023 through a production warrant, and he was granted bail on 9th June 2023. In connection with CR No. 286 of 2023, the petitioner was produced on 24 th May 2023 before the Magistrate and was granted police custody. The petitioner was granted bail on 9th June 2023.
4. The detaining authority has also relied upon two in-camera statements verified on 23rd August 2023 and 25th August 2023 in connection with two separate incidents that occurred in the 2 nd week of August 2023. Witness 'A' of the in-camera statement has alleged that the petitioner and his 8 to 10 associates intercepted the witness and demanded Hafta. It is further alleged that the petitioner abused the passengers travelling in an auto-rickshaw of the witness, and he assaulted the witness with kicks and hockey sticks. The petitioner and his associates threatened the passersby who tried to help the witness. It is also alleged that the petitioner's associates started pelting stones at the people who gathered there, and hence, everyone started running helter- skelter and some of them were also injured. Witness 'A' has 4/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx alleged that the petitioner's associate also assaulted the witness, and the petitioner extorted money from the witness.
5. Similar allegations are made by witness 'B' of in-camera statement. Witness 'B' also alleged that the petitioner threatened and assaulted him with a deadly weapon and extorted money from him. Even witness 'B' has alleged that passersby who tried to intervene were threatened and assaulted by pelting stones. Thus, the people who had gathered started running helter-skelter and some of them were also injured.
6. Thus, by relying upon the aforesaid three CRs and two in- camera statements, the detaining authority has recorded subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a dangerous person and is required to be detained to prevent him from indulging in any prejudicial activities in future.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds to challenge the detention order, however, pressed into service the grounds raised in clauses (d), (e), (f) and (g) of 5/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx paragraph 5 of the petition, which reads as under:
"d. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority vehemently states in para 2 of the grounds of detention that "your criminal antecedents show that, you are a dangerous person and a weapon wielding desperado.... you have unleashed a reign of terror and thereby become persistent danger to the lives and properties of people residing and carrying out their daily routine in the above areas " it is to be noted that the criminal antecedents described in para 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention is absolutely vague and baseless for want of any material, as the antecedents shown in a table at para 4, shows the criminal history shows 2 crimes both are registered at Vijapur Naka Police Station, the first offence is C.R. U/Sec. 142 of Maha Police Act, where the petitioner was convicted and was required to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and the second offence, C.R. No 490/2019 U/Sec. 341, 504, 506 IPC which is Court Pending. Hence the antecedents as shown in the table of cases at para 4 is not in consonances with the allegations as averred in para 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention. The allegations as mentioned in para 2 and 3 are non- existent and extraneous. This shows total non-6/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 :::
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx application of mind of the detaining authority. It is in fact no such antecedents are recorded as against the petitioner in the past. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law for consideration of vague and extraneous material, liable to be quashed and set aside.
e. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has taken into consideration three criminal cases registered against the petitioner, I.e., C.R. No. 254/2023 dated 11.05.2023 (the petitioner was granted bail by the Competent Court of law on P.R. and solvent surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- (1 lakh) on 04.08.2023), C.R. No. 278/2023 dated 19.05.2023 (the petitioner was granted bail by the Competent Court of law on surety of Rs. 15000/- on 09.06.2023) and C.R. No. 286/2023 dated 22.05.2023 (the petitioner was granted bail by the Competent Court of law on surety of Rs. 15000/- on 09.06.2023) all the three crimes are registered u/Sec. 392, 34 IPC. It is pertinent to note that all the three C.R.s are registered in the name of unknown persons and are offenses of chain snatching. The petitioner says and submits that after he was released on bail in all the three C. R.s, in camera statements are recorded on the 28th August 7/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx and 24th August 2023 for incidents occurred in the 2nd week of August. On a plain reading of the incidents as narrated in the in-camera statements when compared with the allegations stated in the registered crimes, no man of prudence can come to the conclusion that the petitioner is one and the same person committing such crimes, especially on the pretext of bail being granted on P.R. and solvent surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 04.08.2023. The said in camera statements are only recorded to fill up the gap and pass the detention order after the petitioner was granted bail on 04.08.2023, and within a span of one month the order of detention came to be passed on 25.09.2023. Such vague and concocted statements should not be considered for passing detention order. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law liable to be quashed and set aside.
f. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has taken into consideration three criminal cases registered against the petitioner, I.e., C.R. No. 254/2023 dated 11.05.2023, C.R. No. 278/2023 dated 19.05.2023 and C.R. No. 286/2023 dated 22.05.2023 all the three crimes are registered u/Sec. 392, 34 IPC. It is pertinent to note that all the three 8/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx C.R.s are registered in the name of unknown persons and are offenses of chain snatching. The said three offenses as alleged by the complainants in all the three C.R.s as narrated show that the alleged incidents have taken place in isolated areas, wherein no members of public were present. The incidents are said to be taken place in isolation and against an individual. Law is well settle that a valid detention order against a person designating him as a dangerous person as defined in Sec.2 (iy) "in case of a dangerous person, when he is engaged, or is making preparation for engaging, in any of his activities as a dangerous person, which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order", that due to the activities of the petitioner, even tempo of the life of the society is disturbed in such a way that normal laws of land are insufficient to curb his prejudicial activities. In all the three criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority to pass detention order, the said alleged activity, even though an offence falling under Chapter XVI and XVIl of IPC, can be dealt with by normal laws of land affecting law and order situation, for which the ordinary law of land is well equipped to take care. Therefore, such cases cannot be taken into consideration to pass a detention order designating the 9/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx petitioner as a dangerous person. This also shows total non-application of mind of the authorities passing order. The subjective satisfaction vitiates. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law liable to be quashed and set aside.
g. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has taken into consideration in camera statements of witness A and B, recorded in camera to arrive at his subjective satisfaction and pass the detention order. In the statement of witness B, the witness narrates the incident stating in para 2 that the petitioner came alongwith 2 to 3 unknown persons to the witness's shop and purchased goods from there. And immediately in the next line the witness says that the petitioner started demanding money. If a person who wants to demand money or is in the habit of extorting money from person, how can that person purchase goods? The in-camera statement is false and concocted one. Such statements cannot be considered for passing detention order. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law liable to be quashed and set aside."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 10/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx paragraph no. 2 of the detention order, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are referred to, which are absolutely vague and baseless and that the antecedents are shown in the table in paragraph 4 of the detention order showing the criminal history of the petitioner.
9. She further submitted that the allegations mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the detention order are non-existent and extraneous. She submits that there is total non-application of mind of detaining authority as no such antecedents have been recorded against the petitioner in the past. She, therefore, submitted that the detention order is illegal and bad in law considering the vague extraneous material against the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the detaining authority has considered the three CRs referred to in paragraph 5. However, in connection with CR No. 254 of 2023, dated 11th May 2023, the petitioner was granted bail on 4th August 2023; in connection with CR No. 278 of 2023, dated 19th May 2023, the petitioner was granted bail on 9 th June 2023 11/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx and in connection with CR No. 286 of 2023, dated 22 nd May 2023, the petitioner was granted bail on 9 th June 2023. She thus submitted that in all the three CRs registered for the alleged offences punishable under sections 392 and 34 of the IPC, the petitioner is granted bail. She submitted that all three CRs were registered against the unknown persons for an offence of chain snatching. She, therefore, submitted that after the petitioner was released on bail in all three CRs, the in-camera statements were recorded on 28th August 2023 and 24th August 2023 for the incidents that occurred in the 2nd week of August. She submitted that the gist of the in-camera statements if compared to the aforesaid CRs, it is not believable that the petitioner is one and the same person who has committed the crime as stated in the said CRs and the said in-camera statements. She submitted that the in-camera statements are recorded only to fill up the gap for passing detention order. She, thus, submitted that the detention order is based on vague concocted in-camera statements that are illegal and bad in law.
12/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 :::
1-wpst-20846-2023.docx
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that three CRs taken into consideration by the detaining authority are registered against the unknown persons. Alleged incidents took place in isolated areas against individuals. She submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that for designating a person as a 'dangerous person' as defined in section 2(iv) of the MPDA Act, the allegation against the detenu should amount to a disturbance of the tempo of life of a society where ordinary laws of the land are insufficient to curb the prejudicial activities. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations against the petitioner in all three CRs can be taken care of under the ordinary law of the land, and there is no requirement to invoke preventive law against the petitioner.
12. She submitted that in the in-camera statement of witness 'A', the allegations against the petitioner is that he, along with an unknown person, went to the shop of the witness and purchased goods from there. She submitted that in the other in-camera statements, witness 'B' alleged that the petitioner was demanding 13/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx money. She submitted that in the event a person is in the habit of extorting money, the said person shall not go to the shop to purchase goods. She, thus, submitted that if the allegations in both in-camera statements are compared, it would show that the statements are false and fabricated. She, thus, submitted that the detention order based on the aforesaid two CRs, and the two in- camera statements are illegal and without any cogent material. She thus submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed and set aside, being illegal, and the petitioner be released forthwith.
13. Learned APP supported the detention order by relying upon the respective affidavits filed by the detaining authority, jail authority and the State Government. Learned APP submitted that perusal of the allegations in the in-camera statements would show that the petitioner, along with his associates, threatened and assaulted the witnesses and extorted money from them. She submitted that in the gist of the in-camera statements of both the witnesses, the petitioner and his associates created terror 14/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx amongst the people by using deadly weapons. She relied upon the affidavit of the detaining authority and submitted that the contents in paragraphs nos. 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention are merely presumptive and introduction and are referred to only to show the proclivity of the petitioner and that the contents of the said paragraphs are not the grounds of detention. She submitted that the past criminal history of the petitioner and preventive action shown in paragraphs 4 and 4.1 of the grounds of detention was only referred to show the tendency and inclination of the petitioner. She submitted that the grounds of detention are based on the contents of paragraph 5 as specifically stated in the detention order. She, thus, submitted that there is no substance in the ground raised on behalf of the petitioner that the detention order is based on non-existent and extraneous material.
14. With reference to the ground of challenge raised in clause
(e) of the petition is concerned, learned APP submitted that the petitioner has committed three offences of robbery and two offences of extortion of money as specifically stated in paragraph 15/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx no.5 of the detention order. She submitted that the punishment for the offence committed by the petitioner in the three relied upon CRs is imprisonment for life or 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. She thus, submitted that the offences are grievous in nature. So far as in-camera statements are concerned, the learned APP submitted that the activities of the petitioner have adversely affected the public in general and that each incident is linked in the chain of anti-social activities of the petitioner showing his tendency towards criminal activities. She submitted that the activities of the petitioner create a feeling of insecurity, fear and danger in the minds of the people, which is evident from the allegations made by both the witnesses of the in-camera statements. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that it cannot be said that in-camera statements are recorded to fill up the gap for passing detention order.
15. With reference to grounds of paragraph nos. (f) and (g) of the petition is concerned, learned APP submitted that the incident of in-camera statement of witness 'A' has occurred in the 16/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx afternoon of 2nd week of August 2023 and the incident of witness 'B' has occurred in the evening of 2 nd week of August 2023. She submitted that in both incidents, the petitioner and his associates had extorted money from the public by creating terror and threatening them by pelting stones and assaulting and injuring the public. She submitted that in both the incidents of in-camera statements, the petitioner and his associates were carrying weapons and had extorted money from the witnesses. Learned APP, thus, submitted that the continued criminal activities of the petitioner show that he is rightly termed as a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act. She, thus, submitted that invocation of the ordinary law of the land is not sufficient to curb the illegal activities of the petitioner, and thus, it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities. She submitted that subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is based on cogent material in the form of relied-upon CRs and two in- camera statements. She also submitted that the in-camera statements are verified by the officer in the rank of ACP and that 17/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the in-camera statements. Learned APP, thus, submitted that there is no substance in the grounds of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
16. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. A perusal of the detention order indicates that the petitioner and his associates have indulged in prejudicial activities by committing the offence of robbery in isolated areas and creating terror among the public. The allegations against the petitioner in CR No. 254 of 2023 indicate that the petitioner and his associates were involved in the chain snatching of 80 years old lady who was a victim of the petitioner's activity. The allegations in the other two CRs being CR No. 278 of 2023 and CR No. 286 of 2023 also pertain to the similar offence alleged against the petitioner and his associates. The activities of the petitioner and his associates, as alleged in the three CRs pertain to the chain snatching in an isolated public place. In all three CRs, alleged offence has occurred in isolated public areas either 18/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx in the evening or late in the night. Thus, such activities amount to creating fear in the minds of the public at large. So far as in- camera statements are concerned, the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in activities of extortion of money in a public place. In the in-camera statement of witness 'B', though it is stated that the petitioner and his associates entered the shop of the witness and purchased goods from there, it is also stated that the petitioner and his associates entered the shop with iron pipe and lathi and that they demanded money from the witness by threatening the witness. In both the incidents of in-camera statements, it is stated that the petitioner and his associates were involved in assaulting and threatening people by using deadly weapons like gupti, iron pipe, lathi and hockey sticks. It is also stated that the petitioner and his associates pelted stones at people who had gathered, which not only created fear among the people but also injured some of them. The in-camera statements are verified by the officer of the rank of ACP. The date of recording in-camera statements and the particulars of the incidents are narrated in the gist of the in-camera statement 19/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx reproduced in the detention order. We do not find any reason for disbelieving the in-camera statements or finding suspicion about the in-camera statements.
17. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the contents of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the detention order being based on vague and baseless material and has no merit. Perusal of the detention order indicates that the grounds of detention are based on the material relied upon in paragraph 5 of the detention order. Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3 pertain to the particulars of the three CRs relied upon by the detaining authority. Paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 pertain to the gist of the in- camera statements, which are also relied upon by the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction. Thus, it cannot be said that the grounds for detention are based on any non-existent or extraneous material. The allegations against the petitioner in the three CRs, as well as in-camera statements, pertain to disturbance of public order, and the same are not restricted to any individual allegations. Thus, once the activity of the 20/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 ::: 1-wpst-20846-2023.docx petitioner pertains to the disturbance of public order and peace, ordinary law cannot be sufficient to curb his illegal activities. Hence, considering the prejudicial activities of the petitioner as narrated in the grounds of detention shows that it was necessary to invoke the preventive law against the petitioner. We do not find any fault in the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority based on the three CRs and two in-camera statements. There is no substance in the grounds of challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner.
18. We do not find any merit in the petition; hence, for the reasons recorded above, the petition is dismissed.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(GAURI GODSE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) 21/21 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2024 07:41:07 :::