Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
NITIN W. SAMBRE, VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
Sunil @ Golu S/o. Madhukarrao Nandeshwar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 811 of 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2025
(A) Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 - Sections 3(2) and 12(1) - Detention order challenged - Petitioner detained for twelve months to prevent bootlegging activities based on six offences under Maharashtra Prohibition Act - Court found lack of nexus between last offence and detention order, absence of chemical analysis reports, and vague witness statements. (Paras 2, 4, 17)
(B) Detention - Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority - Must be based on relevant material and objective criteria - Failure to consider essential evidence renders detention order unsustainable. (Paras 9, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a detention order based on six offences related to bootlegging, arguing that the order lacked necessary evidence and was based on vague witness statements. The petitioner was not arrested in any of the offences. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the detention order was not sustainable due to the absence of chemical analysis reports and insufficient evidence to substantiate the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. (Paras 17)
Issues: The main issues included whether the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was justified and whether the evidence considered was adequate to support the detention. (Paras 9, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detaining authority's reliance on vague and identical witness statements, along with the absence of chemical analysis reports, failed to substantiate the claim that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to public order. (Paras 17)
Result: The detention order dated 6.6.2024 is quashed and set aside; the petitioner is to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
(Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 6.6.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Yavatmal under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act”) which was further confirmed by respondent No.1 on 23.7.2024 under Section 12(1) of the MPDA Act thereby detaining the petitioner for a period of twelve months in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities of bootlegging.
3. The detaining authority has considered six offences registered against the petitioner under Section 65(D) and 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
4. Several grounds are raised in the petition including the ground that the in-camera statements of anonymous witnesses “A” and “B” were recorded on 20.4.2024 and 22.4.2024 respectively which were verified on 2.5.2024 and it is submitted that respondent no.2 has not made specific endorsement that the said witnesses were not willing to produce evidence before the Court of law due to fear. It is also submitted that there was no nexus with the last prejudicial activity of the petitioner allegedly committed on 26.3.2024 and the order of detention passed on 6.6.2024 as there was a delay of about two months. It is also submitted that the copy of bail applications and orders were not supplied to the detenu.
5. The basis on which the impugned detention is passed are the following six crimes registered against the petitioner:-
(a) Crime No.38/2024 dated 20.1.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 65(D) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act registered at Police Station, Yavatmal City.
(b) Crime No.252/2024 dated 20.2.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 65(D) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act registered at Police Station, Yavatmal City.
(c) Crime No.291/2024 dated 2.3.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act registered at Police Station, Yavatmal City.
(d) Crime No.303/2024 dated 7.3.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act registered at Police Station, Yavatmal City.
(e) Crime No.325/2024 dated 12.3.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 65(D) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act registered at Police Station, Yavatmal City.
(f) Crime No.352/2024 dated 26.3.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 65(D) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act registered at Police Station, Yavatmal City.
6. Insofar as all the six crimes are concerned, they are pertaining to the illicit manufacture of handmade liquor. In none of the crimes, the petitioner was arrested. It is stated that petitioner has given life threats to the unnamed witnesses. It is further stated that as a result of the bootlegging activities, the nearby residents are feeling very insecure due to the presence of the detenu. It is further stated that both the witnesses have not raised complaint with the police against the petitioner.
7. Mr. Bhangde, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that neither the narration of facts registered against the petitioner nor the confidential statements of witnesses per se, justify inference that the acts and conduct attributed to the detenu had the propensity to cause prejudice to the maintenance of public order.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner specifically submitted that for prosecuting under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 expert opinion is required to show that alleged liquor is injurious and bad to the health of public. He further stated that details furnished by detaining authority while narrating statements of witnesses had not disclosed the same.
9. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for petitioner that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detainin
Detention orders must be based on relevant evidence and objective criteria; absence of chemical analysis reports and reliance on vague witness statements render such orders unsustainable.
Preventive detention requires credible evidence linking the detainee's actions to public order threats; absence of such evidence invalidates the detention order.
Detention orders must rely on current and relevant material; reliance on stale offences and absence of crucial reports vitiates the order.
Detention orders require a live link to current public order threats; insufficient evidence to classify an individual as a dangerous person renders the order illegal.
The court emphasized the importance of subjective satisfaction, expert opinion, and the adequacy of regular criminal laws in determining the validity of detention under the MPDA Act.
Detention orders require strict compliance with legal standards, including a clear subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, which was not met in this case.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the acts of the detenu being prejudicial to the interest of the society and public order, is sufficient to justify the preventive det....
The apprehension that the activities of the detenue are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order is sufficient for invoking the provisions of the MPDA Act.
Detention Orders require concrete evidence and proper justification; reliance on vague allegations and pending cases without arrests is insufficient to uphold such orders.
The impact of the detenu's activities on public order and the application of Section 5A of the Act in evaluating the grounds of challenge to the detention order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
