2025:BHC-AS:42969-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1136 OF 2025

Sameer @ Panna Mehboob Shaikh

Age- 22 year.

R/at- Lane No.1, Room No.8,

Near Bismillah Masjid, Green Park Kondhwa.

A present Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur. … Petitioner.

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra.

2. Commissioner of Police, Pune City

Sadhu Wasvani Road Camp, Pune. … Respondents

______________________

Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut for the Petitioner.

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

______________________

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

DATE : 20^th SEPTEMBER 2025

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

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a detenu, has impugned the Detention Order dated 13^th December 2024 bearing No.OW.NO./CRIME PCB/DET/ KONDHWA/ SHAIKH/ 1009/2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2, 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 Order of Committal of even date, thereby detaining him in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur.

2) Heard Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused entire record produced before us and the Affidavits in Reply filed by the Respondent Authorities.

3) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, though the Petitioner has taken various grounds in the Petition, while challenging the Order of Detention, she restricts her argument and assail the Detention Order on the ground of delay of 70 days in issuing it, from the date of recording of in-camera statements of the concerned witnesses.

4) Record indicates that, along with the Detention Order dated 13^th December 2024, the Petitioner was also served with the Grounds of Detention dated 13^th December 2024. Perusal of Grounds of detention reveals that, to term the Petitioner as a dangerous person as contemplated under section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, the Sponsoring Authority has taken into consideration and based its conclusions on one crime i.e. C.R. No.633 of 2024 registered with Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, dated 2^nd June 2022 under sections 326, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under section 4(25) of the Arms Act and under section 37(1)(3)/135 of the MPA and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', recorded on 8^th November 2024 and 7^th November 2024 respectively. The last in- camera statement of the witness ‘A’ is admittedly recorded on 8^th November

2024.

5) It be noted here that, in the said C.R. No.633 of 2024, the Petitioner was initially absconding and was arrested on 19^th August 2024. The Petitioner was released on regular bail by the competent Court on 29^th August 2024. As noted earlier, the last in-camera statement of witness 'A' was recorded on 8^th November 2024. The Sponsoring Authority as also the Detaining Authority have not offered any plausible and satisfactory explanation about the delay in recording the in-camera statement of witness 'A' on 8^th November 2024 from 29^th August 2024 i.e. belatedly after about 70 days. The delay of about 70 days in recording the in-camera statements of witnesses has not been explained by the Detaining Authority either in the Grounds of detention or in its Affidavit dated 12^th April 2025.

6) In the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi and others reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 61, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its anguish about the fact that, the statements of witnesses were recorded only after the detenu became successful in getting bail from the concerned Court. It is further held that the unexplained delay, whether short or long, especially when the detenu has taken a specific plea of delay, h