Bombay High Court
Lukesh @ Lukka Sanjay Jodh vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its … on 12 March, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:2493-DB
1 wp788.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.788/2024
Lukesh @ Lukka Sanjay Jodh,
Aged about 26 years, Occupation:
Business, R/o. Ambedkar Ward,
Ganeshpur, Bhandara, District
Bhandara (In jail) ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Home Department
(Special), Government of Maharashtra,
Ministry, Mumbai- 400 032
(Maharashtra).
2. District Magistrate/ Collector,
Bhandara, Office of Collector,
Bhandara, Tq. and District
Bhandara. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. A.M. Chandekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondents Nos.1 and 2.
----------------
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 12.3.2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
2 wp788.2024
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. In the present matter, the petitioner is seeking to
quash and set aside the impugned order of detention passed by
respondent No.2-Collector, Bhandara dated 8.8.2024 in exercise
of powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders,
Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Person
Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981,
(‘M.P.D.A. Act’ for short) tagging him as a ‘dangerous person’ as
per the said Act.
3. Perusal of the order of detention reveals that the same
is based on two offences charged against the petitioner (a) Crime
No.565/2023 registered on 22.8.2023 at Police Station,
Bhandara for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 143,
146, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code read with
3 wp788.2024
Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(2)(va) and
3(1)(R) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and (b) Crime No.573/2024
registered on 13.6.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections
307, 143, 146, 147, 148, 384, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code. In both the offences, the detenu has been released on bail.
The petitioner submitted representation before the Advisory
Board on 4.9.2024.
4. Some of the grounds raised by the petitioner to
challenge the impugned detention order are as under:-
(a) The orders granting bail to the petitioner being vital
documents were not taken into consideration by the detaining
authority.
(b) That the statements of the in-camera witnesses speak
about the incidents dated 12.6.2024 and first week of June 2024
whereas the detention order has been passed on 8.8.2024.
4 wp788.2024
Therefore, there is no nexus between the recording of confidential
statements and passing of the impugned detention order.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Chandekar
submitted that since the first crime i.e. Crime No.565/2023 is
sub judice before the concerned Court and another crime i.e.
Crime No.573/2024 is under police investigation, at this stage, it
cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in dangerous
activities under Section 3(1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. He further
argued that the in-camera statements of witnesses “A” and “B”
nowhere refer to any member of the public who experienced a
sense of panic or that it affected or disrupted the tempo of regular
life of the people. Further verification of those statements were
not done at the time of sending proposal to arrive at subjective
satisfaction as required under Section 3 of the M.P.D.A Act.
6. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the order
impugned is rightly passed by the detaining authority considering
5 wp788.2024
the continuous criminal activities of the petitioner and the
material placed against the petitioner before the detaining
authority. He has prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has brought to
our notice that co-accused Chirag Gajbhiye was detained by the
authority considering the same offences i.e. Crime Nos.565/2023
and 573/2024 and the same confidential statements which are
considered for passing the detention order of this petitioner. The
co-accused Chirag Gajbhiye had challenged the detention order
before this Court by way of Criminal Writ Petition No.814/2024
and on 12.2.2025 this Court has set aside the order passed by the
detaining authority against the said petitioner i.e. co-accused
Chirag Gajbhiye.
6 wp788.2024
9. On the basis of the same crimes and same confidential
statements, which are not even verified by the person who has
recorded it, the detention order came to be passed. As on the
basis of same crimes and same confidential statements the order
passed by the detaining authority against the co-accused Chirag
Gajbhiye is set aside, we are satisfied that the order passed by the
detaining authority against the present petitioner is without
subjective satisfaction and without considering the bail orders
passed in one of the crimes. Considering the observations made
in Criminal Writ Petition No.814/2024 the writ petition stands
allowed. The order passed by the detaining authority 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: 12/03/2025 14:27:58