Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
R.G. Deshpande V.M. Kanade, JJ.
Surendra @ Altaf Kanhaiyalal Mishra .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 76, 59 of 2002, decided on 29-4-2002.
Advocates appeared :
S.A. Jaiswal, in Cri.W.P. No. 76 of 2002, for petitioner.
Mrs. Bharti Dangre, A.P.P., in Cri.W.P. No. 76 of 2002, for respondents.
J.M. Gandhi, in Cri.W.P. No. 59 of 2002, for petitioner.
Fulzele, A.P.P., in Cri.W.P. No. 59 of 2002, for respondents.
Important Points
Subject
Detention - Arbitrary Detention Orders
Act Referred
Headnote
Detention - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 3(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the detention orders dated 31st October, 2001 and 24th October, 2001 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The grounds of detention in both cases were identical, and both detenues were involved in the same offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention orders were quashed and set aside as there was no sufficient material to show that the petitioners had made the threatening calls. The court also noted that the Detaining Authority had proceeded on presumption and had not considered vital material such as voice testing and handwriting analysis. The State Government was found to have acted arbitrarily in not revoking the detention orders of the petitioners when the orders of two other similarly situated individuals were revoked.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of evidence for detention, non-supply of vital material to the Detaining Authority, and the arbitrary action of the State Government in not revoking the detention orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction was vitiated due to the non-supply of vital material and the arbitrary action of the State Government. The court also emphasized that the High Court should be slow to review the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority but found that in this case, the Detaining Authority had proceeded on presumption without considering vital material.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the detention orders and directed the detenues to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
2. Facts:
The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 76/2002 is a student studying in LL.B Part I and is 24 years old. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 59/2002 is the wife of detenu Rakesh Lachhiramani who is a young boy of 24 years of age. One Laxmikant Gupta who is the partner of Somras Distillers, filed an application on 11-4-2001 addressed to Shri Kulwant Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Nagpur. In the said application, he has mentioned that on 11-4-2001 at 18.45 hours when he came to his Office at Parwati Tower, Indora Chowk, he received a telephone call on his Mobile Phone No. 9823035000 from Mobile Phone No. 9822238184. He was told on the phone that the caller's name was Salimbhai and he demanded Rs. 25 lacs as ransom money and he was informed that the caller belongs to “D Company”. He was threatened that if the money was not paid, he would be killed. The said Laxmikant, therefore, filed an application and discussed the matter with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Nagpur, and accordingly the police kept surveillance. It later on transpired that the threatening calls were made in the name of Altafbhai and Salimbhai from Mumbai.
3. The Crime Branch Police advised the complainant to continue the discussion with the persons demanding ransom. It was accordingly decided in the discussion between the said Salimbhai and Altafbhai that the said Laxmikant would deposit Rs. 25 lacs in the office of Dolphin Courier, Gandhibag, Nagpur and the same would be sent to Dolphin Courier, Kalbadevi Branch at Mumbai. It was further agreed that the said amount of ransom would be handed over to a person showing the currency note of Rs. 10/- bearing No. 24-E 599896. The said Laxmikant informed the extortionist that he had deposited the money and asked them to accept it on 19-4-2001 at Mumbai.
4. The Crime Branch Police, Nagpur City, accordingly laid a trap and sought the help of Lokmanya Tilak Marg Police Station, Mumbai and they waited at the Office of Dolphin Courier, Mumbai. Accordingly, the Manager of Dolphin Courier, Mumbai showed a note of Rs. 10/- to the detenu Rakesh while the petitioner Surendra was standing on the road and holding a mobile phone. When the police caught the petitioner Surendra and Rakesh, no evidence was found to suggest that both these persons were either Salim or Altaf, because there was no registration on the Mobile Phone Number and it was purchased by making payment on the spot and pre-paid simcard was purchased. As such there was no evidence to show that either of these petitioners were the persons who made the threatening calls. After the petitioner Surendra and Rakesh (husband of the petitioner in Petition No. 59/2002) were arrested, 4 other persons viz. Prakash Jagwani, Mahesh Bhateja, Vijaybhansingh Thakur and Kuttukhan s/o Ahamad Khan, were also arrested.
5. After the arrest of the petitioners and the other persons, the report appeared in the newspapers about their arrest and after reading the newspapers, 7 other complainants came forward and made complaints that they were also made to pay the ransom money and they were similarly threatened in the name of Salimbhai and Altaf. So far as the first complaint is concerned, it is one filed by Laxmikant, of which the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 5, Nagpur on 22-6-2001.
6. The prosecution took the voice test of the petitioner Surendra and Rakesh as against the recorded
