IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.19959 OF 2024 Vikram @ Bala Shahaji Sonavane .... Petitioner.

versus Commissioner of Police and Ors. .... Respondents.



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



Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State/Respondent.



Mr. S. S. Patil, PSI Vartaknagar.

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 7^th FEBRUARY, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)

1. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18/7/2024 passed by the Respondent No.1-The Commissioner of Police, Thane. By a separate order of committal of the same date, the Petitioner was directed to be detained in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. The Petitioner was detained pursuant to the provisions 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. According to the detaining Authority he was a dangerous person within the meaning of the said Act.

2. Along with the detention order, the Petitioner was served with the grounds for detention dated 18/7/2024. In the initial paragraphs, in the grounds i.e. upto paragraph No.3, the past history of the Petitioner was mentioned. There is reference to 6 registered offences at Vartak Nagar Police Station between January 2019 to May 2024. There were two instances where preventive measures were taken against him. First one was an externment order passed in the year 2021 and the other was proceedings under Section 110(e) (g) of Cr. P. C. However it was clarified in paragraph 3 itself that this past history was mentioned only as an introduction of grounds of detention and they were not relied upon by the detaining Authority for forming subjective satisfaction to issue order of detention.

3. The grounds on which the detention order was passed were mentioned in paragraph-4. There was a reference to CR No.626/2024 registered at Vartak Nagar Police Station on

21/5/2022 under Sections 397, 386, 427, 504, 506 of the IPC read with Section 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act . There is a reference to the ‘in camera’ statements of two witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ which are mentioned in paragraph 5.

4. As far as the registered offence was concerned, it pertained to the incident dated 21/5/2024. On that date at around 1.30 p.m the Petitioner entered the informants shop and demanded Rs.5,000/- The Petitioner abused him and threatened him. He assaulted the informant on his head with the handle of a weapon. The Petitioner took away Rs.40,000/- from the informant’s shop. The Petitioner also threatened him. On this basis , FIR was lodged. The investigation was carried out. The Petitioner was arrested on 21/5/2024. The investigation continued. The Petitioner made an application for bail and the bail order was granted in his favour on

12/6/2024.

5. ‘In camera’ statement of witness ‘A’ was recorded on 11/6/2024 in respect of an incident which had taken place in the first week of May 2024 at around 9.30 p.m. At that time, the Petitioner had demanded Rs.1,000/- from witness ‘A’. The Petitioner assaulted him and by show of a knife removed Rs.700 from witness ‘A’. The people in the locality got scared and ran away. This ‘in camera’ statement was verified by ACP, Vartak Nagar, Division Thane on 21/6/2024.

6. The statement of witness ‘B’ was recorded on 12/6/2024. It refers to another incident which had taken place in the 2^nd week of May at around 10.15 p.m. On this occasion the Petitioner had threatened witness B and had assaulted him. He again had shown a knife to this witness and had forcibly taken Rs.1,100/- from witness ‘B’. People in the area had got scared and had run away. This ‘in camera’ statement was verified by ACP, Vartak Nagar Division, Thane on 21/6/2024. Based on these activities, the respondent No.1 recorded his satisfaction regarding the necessity of passing the