Bombay High Court
Vijay Ramdas Bende vs The State Of Mha.T Hr. Home Dep. ... on 19 December, 2022
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, M.W. Chandwani
Judgment 1 62-W.P. No.622.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2022
Vijay Ramdas Bende,
Aged about 39 years, Occu. - labour,
R/o Brahmanwada Thadi,
Tq. Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Home Department (Special)
Through its Section Officer,
Second Floor, Main Building,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2) Collector & District Magistrate,
Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATED : 19.12.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Judgment 2 62-W.P. No.622.2022.odt
3. We find from the grounds of detention that two crimes, bearing No. 126 of 2022 and 293 of 2021 each of which registered for an offence punishable under Sections 65(d) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 at Police Station Brahmanwada Thadi, Amravati Rural were not considered to be so serious by the Police as to warrant arrest of the petitioner in each of these crimes. If this is so, in our view, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that when a particular criminal activity of the detenue is not considered to be so serious as to warrant his arrest under the regular law, his detention under the law relating to preventive detention would be wholly unjustified. This is also the view taken by this Court and also Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases as Vasudev Mahadev Surve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 592 of 2021, decided on 16.12.2021, Hanif Karim Laluwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 75 of 2022, decided on 28.06.2022, Kasam Kalu Nimsurwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 269 of 2022, decided on 26.07.2022 and Akshay Kishor Madavi Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 258 of 2022, decided on 19.08.2022.
4. We are, therefore, of the view that these two crimes could not have been taken by the authorities as constituting relevant material for preventively detaining the petitioner.
Judgment 3 62-W.P. No.622.2022.odt
5. If the afore-stated two crimes are kept aside, what would remain is the material in the nature of statements of two confidential witnesses. However, even these statements would not help in any manner the authorities in this case. These statements only suggest that the petitioner is a dangerous person who regularly and habitually indulges in bootlegging activity but, the Investigating Officer of Brahmanwada Thadi Police Station who has investigated the Crime Nos. 126 of 2022 and 293 of 2021 has different opinion. He does not think the petitioner to be such a dangerous bootlegger and criminal or otherwise he would have instead of issuing notice to him under Section 41(1-a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arrested the petitioner in those crimes, but, he has not done so and therefore, the statements of the confidential witnesses pointing towards the same criminal activity would not be relevant in this case.
6. Thus, this is a case wherein the competent authority has relied upon something which was absolutely irrelevant in the present case and there being no other material available on record to record requisite satisfaction by the competent authority, the impugned detaining order cannot be upheld by this Court.
7. In the result, the Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 and also the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Judgment 4 62-W.P. No.622.2022.odt Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)
Kirtak
Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:19.12.2022
18:54