Bombay High Court
Dinesh @ Dalya S/O Madhukar Meshram vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its … on 12 February, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:2342-DB
1 wp844.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.844/2024
Dinesh @ Dalya S/o Madhukar
Meshram, Aged 49 years, Occu. Labour
R/o. Ambedkar Nagar, Tumsar, Tah.
Tumsar, District - Bhandara. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Home (Special),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Collector and District Magistrate,
Bhandara, District-Bhandara.
3. The Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Tumsar,
District-Bhandara. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. K.S. Motwani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----------------
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 12.2.2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
2 wp844.2024
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Advocate for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge
order dated 5.4.2024 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, (hereinafter referred to as “M.P.D.A.
Act”) by the District Magistrate, Bhandara. The petitioner was
heard before the Advisory Board on 10.9.2024. The State
Government, after receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board,
issued the order of confirmation under Section 12 of the
M.P.D.A. Act on 30.9.2024. Representation was submitted on
4.9.2024 by the petitioner.
3. Though, four criminal cases have been registered at
Police Station, Tumsar, against the detenu, the most recent
offence i.e. Crime No.918/2023 has been relied upon along with
3 wp844.2024
two in-camera statements of confidential witnesses “A” and “B”
while passing the order of detention.
(a) Crime No.918/2023 for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 353, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of
the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is registered on 26.12.2023.
4. The proposal for sanction of detention comprised of
other three crimes as under:-
(i) Crime No.528/2023 for the offences punishable
under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, registered on
18.10.2023.
(ii) Crime No.274/2022 for the offence punishable
under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered
on 1.8.2022.
(iii) Crime No.011/2021 for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and under Sections
4 wp844.2024
3(1), (i) (ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised
Crimes Act, registered on 19.1.2021.
5. Grounds raised by the petitioner are as under:-
(a) Detenu released on bail in Crime No.528/2023 and
Crime No.918/2023 while released on bail in Crime
No.274/2022 and the matter pursuant to Crime No.011/2021 is
pending before the competent Court.
(b) Stale offences accounted by the detaining authority.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Motwani,
submitted that on perusal of Crime No.918/2023 it is clear that
the allegations were against the co-accused and there is nothing
to show that the detenu was spreading terror with gun. Further it
was stated that in Crime No.011/2021 there was no situation of
‘disturbance of public order’ as it was a fight between two groups.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that
the offences which were taken into consideration were stale and
did not have nexus with passing of the detention order. He added
5 wp844.2024
that bail orders with respect to all crimes were placed before the
detaining authority but they were not taken into consideration.
7. Learned A.P.P. Doifode strongly relied upon the
affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that
it is not true that the copies of in-camera statements were not
provided to the petitioner. The in-camera statement was last
recorded on 14.2.2024. The Police Station, Tumsar initiated
proposal for detention on 28.2.2024 which was further submitted
to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhandara who verified the
in-camera statements on 4.3.2024 and recommended the
proposal to the detaining authority on the same day. Learned
A.P.P. further argued that it is mentioned in the confidential
statements of the anonymous witnesses that when people
gathered at the spot, the petitioner waved a knife towards them
and threatened them and, therefore, created panic in their minds.
He further submitted that the grounds of detention, its true
translation in Marathi language and other relevant documents
6 wp844.2024
were supplied to the detenu on the next day i.e. on 6.4.2024. It
was further submitted that the truthfulness of the in-camera
statements had been verified and recorded by a Police Officer of
the rank of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tumsar who is also a
Special Executive Magistrate. The detaining authority has
carefully gone through the verification report of the
Sub-Divisional Police Officer and then put the remarks as “seen
and verified”, endorsed the statements as true and genuine.
8. On perusal of order it appears that only one crime i.e.
Crime No.918/2023 and two confidential statements are
considered for passing the detention order.
9. One of the co-accused Shivank Thakur was detained
considering the same offence. He had challenged the detention
order before this Court and this Court has passed the judgment
and order on 4.2.2025 and set aside the order passed by the
respondents authority. Similar offence is considered by the
authority for passing the detention order. As the role of the
co-accused whose detention order has been set aside by this Court
7 wp844.2024
had main role in the said offence as he had shown the firearm to
the police officer. The offence is registered against this petitioner
along with other co-accused Shivak Thakur, the complainant who
is the police officer came to Gobarwahi along with one accused in
M.C.O.C. case for investigation. The petitioner along with other
co-accused had restrained the complainant while he was going
back after investigation and one of the co-accused Shivank has put
the pistol and tried to kill him, therefore, the offence is registered.
Said offence is considered and the person who has shown the
pistol, his detention order is set aside by this Court wherein one of
us is a party to the said judgment (Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.).
10. Two confidential statements are considered by the
detaining authority while passing the detention order. The
stereotype statements are considered which was not even verified
by the detaining authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent
judgment observed about stereotype statements in case of Arjun
S/o Ratan Gaikwad V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others in
Criminal Appeal No.5204/2024 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.)
8 wp844.2024
No.12516/2024) decided on 11.12.2024 in para 17 has observed
as under:-
“17. Insofar as statements of the two unnamed
witnesses are concerned, the allegations are as vague
as it could be. In any case the statements which were
stereotype even if taken on its face value would show
that the threat given to the said witnesses is between
the appellant and the said witnesses. The statements
also do not show that the said witnesses were
threatened by the appellant in the presence of the
villagers which would create a perception in the mind
of the villagers that the appellant herein is a threat to
the public order.”
11. As this Court has already released the co-accused
Shivank Thakur and admittedly the detaining authority has
considered the same crime for passing the detention order,
considering the judgment regarding stereotype statements of the
witnesses as per the guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of
Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad (cited supra) it cannot be said that the
detaining authority has rightly arrived at subjective satisfaction for
passing the detention order against the petitioner.
9 wp844.2024
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed
by respondent No.2 is set aside.
The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other crime.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/03/2025 15:52:02