cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 1/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.134 OF 2025 Sonihalsingh @ Sonu S/o Sameersingh Bhada Aged about 30 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o Sant Chokhoba Ward, Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbia-32. 2. The Collector & District Magistrate, Wardha, Distt. Wardha. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Wardha, Distt. Wardha. 4. The Police Inspector, Police Station, Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha. Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adv.S.B.Wahane, h/f Mr.Yash Rashtrapal Sawaitul, counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. R-1to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25/03/2025. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) 1) Heard. Kavita 2025:BHC-NAG:3284-DB cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 2/10 2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Criminal Writ Petition is heard finally. 3) By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the impugned detention order bearing No./ A.K. Home/Desk - 2(B) WS/1501/2024 dated 24th October 2024 passed by Respondent no.2 – Collector, Wardha, under Section 3(1) 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 “MPDA Act”) and approved by Respondent no.1 under Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act on 30.10.2024. 4) The said detention order is based on the crimes registered against the detenu in the last six months at Police Station, Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha. (i) C.R. no. 1390/2024, registered on 20/10/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(3), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (ii) C.R. no. 972/2024, filed on 19/07/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act. (iii) C.R. no. 835/2024, registered on 24/06/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Kavita cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 3/10 (iv) C.R. no. 660/2024, filed on 17/05/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (v) C.R. no. 628/2024, registered on 15/05/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 324, 427, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5) In crimes at Sr.no. (i) and (ii), the petitioner has been released on notice u/s 35(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while in the rest of the offences he had been released under Section 41(1) A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In Crime no. 927/2024, an iron dagger valued Rs.100/- and an Oppo company cell phone worth Rs. 7000/-; total material worth Rs. 7100/- was seized. Five times preventive actions were taken against the petitioner u/sec 56 (1)(A). 6) Some of the grounds challenging the said detention order, put forth by the petitioner are as under: (a) While passing the detention order, the detaining authority has not considered the bail granted to the petitioner/detenu by the learned Courts. (b) While supplying the documents only the operative order has been supplied to the detenu and no reasoning given by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hinganghat, Distt.Wardha, has been supplied and therefore, the same has not been considered by the detaining Kavita cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 4/10 authority while passing the detention order. (c) Delay in sending reference of the case of the petitioner/detenu for review to the Advisory Board. The Board has not communicated any further order to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner Adv. Sawane has placed reliance upon the case of Abdul Sattaar Ibrahim Manik vs. Union of India & others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :- In a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the Detaining Authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the authority and the copies should be supplied to the detenu”. 7) The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further stated that while granting the bail to the petitioner/detenu, the learned Courts have considered the facet of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and released him on bail. 8) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr.S.S.Doifode, supported the findings provided in the detention order and contradicted to the submissions of the petitioner. Kavita cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 5/10 9) He submitted that even after getting bail, it is seen that the petitioner again involved in the offences shown in the grounds of detention. According to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the petitioner in ground no. II of this petition, the bail applications and orders passed on it are placed by the police authority along with the proposal that applications and orders were considered at the time of passing the order of detention. 10) Learned A.P.P. further argued that, through video conferencing the petitioner was personally heard by the Advisory Board on 26.11.2024. It is further submitted that as per Section 11(4) of the MPDA Act, the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, except that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential and hence the contention of the petitioner in view of such provision of the Act has no force. 11) It is to be noted from the impugned detention order that in all five offences within the six months are considered for passing the detention order. In all the cases, the deadly weapons are used. In the cases, which are considered notices under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued and petitioner was not Kavita cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 6/10 arrested. The petitioner has raised the ground of non-consideration of bail orders. As the petitioner was never arrested in the offences which are considered, question of consideration of bail order does not arise. 12) In this case, the petitioner has assaulted the complainant Abhinav Sudhakar Hekne without any reason. He is a vegetable vendor. The petitioner along with his friend asked the complainant to give Rs.50,000/- otherwise, threatened to kill him and gave fists and blows. When the complainant ran away, the petitioner called his friend Akash and took him to Nagri Sahakari Bank and withdrew the amount of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, again the petitioner assaulted the complainant with fists and blows and gave threats. The crime was registered on his complaint. Thereafter, the notice was issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS. 13) The another offence being Crime No.972 of 2024 punishable under Section 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The police received the information about the petitioner that he is roaming with a dagger and abusing the persons in the said locality. Thereafter, the police went on the spot and they found the Kavita cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 7/10 petitioner with one iron dagger, it was seized. 14) On 24/06/2024, Crime No. 835 of 2024 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Again the petitioner had assaulted the complainant without any reason and injured him. He was having something like fighter. The notice was issued. 15) Crime No.660 of 2024 punishable under Section 324,504,506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. This incident has been occurred in between the family members. The petitioner had assaulted without any reason to his elder brother with stones and bricks. The offence was registered. Notice was issued to him. 16) The Crime No. 628 of 2024 punishable under Section 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant was preparing for the entrance examination of Police Department. The petitioner asked him not to stay there. Thereafter, the petitioner assaulted him with cutter, fists and blows and thereafter, with the iron rod. In this case, notice was issued. 17) Again on 17/04/2024,Crime No. 549 of 2024 punishable Kavita cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 8/10 under Section 4,25 Arms Act, r/w Section 142 of Maharashtra Police Act was registered. He was found with sword and was creating terror in public by abusing with the said sword. 18) Two statements of the witnesses also show that the petitioner had created terror. When there was Navratri Utsav, he was driving the motor cycle in a very rash and negligent manner. When one person fell down and the witness went there to give the understanding to the petitioner, he had assaulted the petitioner by taking out knife from his waist and created terror in the said area. There was lunger. He threatened people who were in the queue for lunger. He asked to stop the Bhajan and songs of Navratri by threatening the people gathered there. The statement of witness ‘B’ also shows that he had threatened the witness with sword stating that why he has given information about sale of illicit liquor of his father and created terror in the said area. After considering the crimes and statements of witnesses it appears that in all the offences, the petitioner had used the deadly weapons. In view of the punishment being less than seven years, he was intimated that he is required to be present in the Court at the time of submission Kavita cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 9/10 of the charge-sheet. If a person is roaming with sword in his hand in public then prima facie, we can consider that it would raise public order and not only law and order situation. In all the offences, he had created terror in public. In two offences, he was found with sword and dagger and was creating terror in public. 19) The statements of witnesses A and B would show that the incident had taken place in the public and the said witnesses were threatened and assaulted by the petitioner in public therefore, these incidents and facts would certainly show that it is the public order that was disturbed. At the cost of repetition, we would like to note the fact that the petitioner was roaming in public by holding sword in his hand. In all the five offences he had used deadly weapons and the offences had occurred in public. He has not even spared his family members. The statement of witnesses were verified by the detaining authority. As the aforesaid subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on the basis of the five offences, as well as two in- camera statements, we do not find that this is to be a fit case where we should exercise our Constitutional power to set aside the detention order. We may also refer to the opinion that has been Kavita cri.wp 134 of 25.odt 10/10 given by the Advisory Board. The detention order has been confirmed taking into consideration the opinion of the Advisory Board as contemplated under law and therefore, we pass the following order. 20) The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. 21) Rule stands discharged. (MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J) Kavita