2025:BHC-AS:39822-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1313 OF 2025

Sharavan @ Rahul Ashok Burungale ] Age : 30, Occ.: Labour, ] (Presently in custody of Nashik Jail ] R/o Sai Shraddha Society, ] Behind Brahma Hotel, Manik Baug ]

Sinhagad Road, Pune ] … Petitioner

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra ]

Through Principal Secretary, ] Department of Home, ] Govt. of Maharashtra, ] Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, ] Mumbai – 400 032 ] Summons to be served upon ] Office of Government Pleader, ] High Court, Mumbai ]

2. Commissioner of Police, Pune ]

Having address at : Pune ]

3. The Superintendent ]

Nashik Central Prison, Nashik ] … Respondents

_______________________________________

Mr. Om N. Latpate a/w Mr. Siddharth Satariya, Adv. Sagar Shinde, Adv.

Sameer Tambe and Mr. Abhijeet Aher for Petitioner.

Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

Mr. Rahul Namade, API, Parvati Police Station, Pune City, present.

_______________________________________

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

DATE : 16^th September 2025.

JUDGMENT : (Per : A.S. Gadkari, J.)

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned the Detention Order dated 22^nd November 2024, bearing OW. NO./CRIME PCB/DET/PARVATI/BURUNGALE/950/2024, issued by the Respondent No.2, i.e. Commissioner of Police, Pune, 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 Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Maha.Act No.LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996, 2009, 2015) (for short “MPDA Act” ) and the Committal Order of even date, thereby detaining him in the Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.

2) Heard Mr. Latpate, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent, State. Perused entire record produced before us.

3) The principal ground raised in the present Petition for impugning the Detention Order dated 22^nd November 2024 is that, there is vast variance / discrepancy in the English version and vernacular Marathi version of the Grounds of Detention served upon the Petitioner along with the Detention Order, which created confusion in the mind of the Petitioner and therefore his right to file a proper and effective representation with the concerned Authority is impaired, which ultimately resulted into violation of his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

3.1) The impugned Detention Order is based on one crime i.e. C.R. No. 302 of 2024, registered with Parvati Police Station, Pune City under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita & under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, against the Petitioner and two in-camera statements of witnesses. The Detaining Authority after perusing the record submitted by the Sponsoring Authority has come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner is a ‘dangerous person’ as contemplated under Section 2 (b-1) of the MPDA Act and therefore the impugned Order dated 22^nd November 2024, is issued under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act.

3.2) It be noted here that, in the said C.R. No. 302 of 2024, the Petitioner was arrested on 20^th September 2024 and was behind bars. The Detention Order was served on him on 23^rd November 2024. The Petitioner was released on bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 27^th December 2024, under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, as the Investigating Agency could not complete the investigation of the said crime within the stipulated period under the law.

3.3) Perusal of the record indicates that, the grounds of detention served upon the Petitioner are in English language and also in vernacular Marathi language.

3.4) In the English version of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority, in para No. 8, has stated as under:

“8. …………. Presently, your bail application is allowed by the concerned Hon’ble Court, Pune in the offences of 1) Parvati Police Sta