Petitioner challenged his preventive detention order under the MPDA Act based on three offences and two in-camera statements. The court held two IPC offences affected public order rather than law and order, found the delay explained, and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-NAG:10425-DB
wp377.2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.377/2024
Mohammad Mubsheer Shaikh alias Chand S/o Shaikh Shabbir, aged about 28 Yrs., Occ. Private, R/o C/o Shri Nandeshwar, Suikhmati Apartment, Flat No.203, Vaishali Nagar, Panchpaoli, Nagpur.
... Petitioner
Mr. Gaurav S. Gour, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM: VINAY JOSHI & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 13.9.2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Heard. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2 wp377.2024
3 wp377.2024
Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and third offence is Crime No.1023/2023 for 4/25 of Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
4 wp377.2024
reasoned order has been passed while authorising the detention of the petitioner. Petitioner was involved in all other offences which are related to human body and the prevention of cruelty to animals. Even the preventive action was taken against him from time to time but he has not curtailed his activities. If we consider the facts of Crime No.1023/2023 it can be seen that the petitioner was found roaming on road holding a knife in his hand. This indicates that he wanted to create terror amongst people at large. Another offence is registered against the petitioner is Crime No.257/2023 under Sections 452, 342, 294, 506-B, 427 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Knife has been used. The petitioner has given threats to the informant and took out the gas cylinder and gave threats that he will ablaze all of them. Further in-camera statements would show that in both the offences threats were given by creating terror in the mind of people at large so that the petitioner can continue his illegal activities. The opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit
5 wp377.2024
his representation. He was given hearing before the Advisory Board and the detention order has been confirmed by the Detaining Authority. No illegality has been committed and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Detaining Authority, the offence i.e. Crime No.889/2023 which is under the provisions of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act cannot be considered under the provisions of M.P.D.A. Act but two offences i.e Crime Nos.257/2023 and 1023/2023 can be considered under the M.P.D.A. Act as those are under the Indian Penal Code and would fall under the provisions of Chapters XVI and XVII of the I.P.C.
6 wp377.2024
talking with her daughter on road and though all accused persons were not known to the complainant they came to her house, they beat her brother and asked the complainant to leave the premises along with her children. The petitioner threw household articles from house and by taking out gas cylinder gave threats that he will ablaze all of them. Thereafter the complainant lodged the complaint. It appears from this crime that there was no personal enmity between the complainant and detenue and the detenue was not known to her. He gave threats in public place to the complainant and her brother, abused them asking her to leave the said area. Obviously, it is not against the individual person but it definitely creates situation of public order.
7 wp377.2024
went there on the spot. The person was creating nuisance. He was holding knife in his hand. Knife was seized. In both the offences the petitioner was released on bail.
The petitioner along with his associates went to the shop of the
8 wp377.2024
witness and asked him to give Rs.5,000/-. When he stated that he is not having that much money, petitioner shouted in filthy language and took out knife from his waist and pointed on the neck of witness. The accomplices of the petitioner pushed the witness to the ground and beat him on the chest and back. When the accomplices were beating the witness passers-by gathered there, the petitioner pointed a knife at them and threatened them by saying that not to stay there otherwise he will kill them. Then the people ran away from the spot. Thereafter he took forcibly Rs.1,230/- from the right pocket of the trouser of witness and while leaving gave threat not to inform it to the police. The petitioner has created terror in public by showing the knife.
9 wp377.2024
asked why he is informing about him to police and also asked him that “bls ,slk lcd fl[kk] nqckjk dksbZ dke dk u jgs” and he pushed the witness down and his associates also beat the witness with fist and blows. When people gathered there, the petitioner took out a knife from his possession and went at the people and threatened them by saying to leave the place. Thereafter people left the spot. He took forcibly Rs.5,209/- from trouser and the petitioner has given threats to the witness not to inform about it to the police.
that it is the public order that was disturbed.
is delay of 30 days for passing the detention order.
10 wp377.2024
no delay in passing the detention order. The time starts from the date of recording of statement, it’s verification and the consideration by the Authority. The last in-camera statements were recorded on 20.09.2023. The Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur initiated the proposal for detention of the detenue on 23.09.2023 under the MPDA, 1981 (Amendment of 2015) and the same was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lakkadganj Division. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lakkadganj Division verified the in-camera statements of witness “A” and “B” on 25.09.2023 and recommended the proposal to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-III, Nagpur on 26.09.2023. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-III, Nagpur verified the in-camera statement and after scrutinizing, recommended it to the Addl. Commissioner of Police, North Region, Nagpur on 28.09.2023. The Addl. Commissioner of Police, North Region, Nagpur City on 29.09.2023 forwarded it to the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur i.e. the Detaining Authority and on 02.10.2023, it
11 wp377.2024
was received in the Detention Cell, Crime Branch, Nagpur. On 03.10.2023, the Detention Cell, Crime Branch, Nagpur initiated the proposal to the Detaining Authority i.e. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur. It is submitted that the Detaining Authority prima facie found, that it was a fit case for detention order under MPDA and directed the office of the Detention Cell, Crime Branch, Nagpur to prepare compilation, translation, fair typing and comply with other requirements of law. The Detention Cell, Crime Branch, Nagpur complied with these directions and on 03.10.2023 the draft of the grounds of detention were forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Detention), Crime Branch, Nagpur City who went through the draft of the grounds of detention and other relevant documents and gave his endorsement on 03.10.2023 which were then forwarded to the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime), Nagpur City. The Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime), Nagpur City went through the draft of the grounds of detention and other relevant documents and gave his endorsement on 04.10.2023 before forwarding to
12 wp377.2024
the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority carefully went through the grounds of detention and other relevant documents and after being subjectively satisfied, passed the detention order and on the same day i.e. 05.10.2023, the detenue was detained.
and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it is preventive action of passing the detention order if the person is engaged continuously in activities prejudicial to the public order.
13 wp377.2024
not find this is to be fit case where we should exercise our constitutional powers to set aside the detention order. We may also refer to the opinion of the Advisory Board and the said opinion is made available to us which shows that the petitioner is heard through video conferencing and Advocate who represented the petitioner was also heard. The detention order has been confirmed taking into consideration two offences and statements of witnesses “A” and “B” as contemplated under law and, therefore, we pass the following order:-
Writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detention order under Section 3(2) MPDA Act was vitiated by non-application of mind, unverified stereotyped in-camera statements, or failure to consider bail orders?
Whether the 30-day delay between the last crime and the detention order was properly explained?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nenavath Bujji etc. V/s. State of Telangana and othersRelied on¶19
2024 SCC OnLine SC 367 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Mohammad Mubsheer Shaikh alias Chand S/o Shaikh Shabbir
State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
State of Maharashtra, through the Commissioner of Police (Nagpur City)
Vinay Joshi
Vrushali V. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
