Sayyed Junaid Sayyed Abdul Qadeer Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

Sayyed Junaid Sayyed Abdul Qadeer Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority underlying the detention and its confirmation is arbitrary and whether the petitioner's activities (two FIRs and two in-camera statements) are detrimental to public order such that ordinary penal law would be insufficient. +3 more

Court's answer

Both offences (C.R. No.501/2023 - Arms Act/Motor Vehicles Act; C.R. No.674/2023 - IPC Chapter XVI/XVII robbery and assault) are covered by the definition of 'dangerous person' under Section 2(b)(1) MPDA Act; the Court cannot examine the veracity of the allegations.

Ratio / Principle

Service of notice under Section 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C. on the detenue instead of his arrest is not a mitigating factor; following this Court's earlier judgment in Vinod Dhannulal Jaiswal (paras 35-36 thereof), the petitioner's submissions on this count are rejected.

Key takeaways

Both in-camera statements were verified by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer on 22.12.2023; the detaining authority recorded a specific finding in paragraph no.12 of the grounds of detention verifying their reliability and explained the verification in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the reply; the statements are reliable.ratio¶42
The Division Bench judgment in Ashokrao (Criminal Writ Petition No.738/2022), relied on by the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts because here the detaining authority not only recorded satisfaction in the grounds of detention but reaffirmed it in the affidavit-in-reply.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) upheld. Holding of the Bench (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.): (i) service of notice under Section 41(A)(1) Cr.P.C. on the detenue instead of arrest is not a mitigating factor, following Vinod Dhannulal Jaiswal (AIR Online 2024 Bom 105); (ii) two FIRs (Arms Act S.4/25 and S.185 MV Act; IPC SS.341, 385, 323, 504, 506) and two in-camera statements of anonymous witnesses, verified by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and expressly relied on in the grounds of detention and affidavit-in-reply, fall within the definition of 'dangerous person' under Section 2(b)(1); (iii) Ashokrao (Criminal Writ Petition No.738/2022) distinguished on facts; (iv) judicial review of subjective satisfaction is confined - no appellate reappraisal or substitution of view; satisfaction tested against Nenavath Bujji (AIR 2024 SC 1610) found faultless, not arbitrary, ex facie perverse or grossly unreasonable; (v) statutory timelines complied - approval under S.3(3) within 12 days, confirmation in time, due compliance of SS.8, 10 and 11. Criminal Writ Petition dismissed; rule discharged.

2024:BHC-AUG:10257-DB

1 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Criminal Writ Petition No. 576 / 2024

Sayyed Junaid Sayyed Abdul Qadeer

Age : 22 years, Occu. Labour,

R/o Near Badi Masjid, Azam Colony,

Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra

Through its Secretary, Home Department (Special),

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

The District Collector,

Hingoli.

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub-Division Hingoli (Rural)

Dist. Hingoli.

Police Inspector, Police Station Hingoli (Rural), Tq. And Dist. Hingoli.

The Superintendent of Jail, Harsul Central Prison, Aurangabad. ..Respondents

_ _ _

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S.E. Shekade

A.P.P. for Respondents /State : Ms. V.N. Patil-Jadhav

_ _ _

2 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &

SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 7 MAY 2024

PRONOUNCED ON : 10 MAY 202 4 APRIL

JUDGMENT [ Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J. ] :

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally with their consent at the admission stage.

2. We are called upon to examine order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the respondent no.2/detaining authority and order of confirmation dated 21.02.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act for the sake of brevity and convenience). The petitioner is held to be dangerous person on the basis of two offences and two in-camera statements.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail impugned order on the ground that the subjective satisfaction is arbitrary. He would point out FIR of both the offences to demonstrate that the allegations are not serious in nature and would not constitute any prejudice to public order. He would point out that in both the offences the petitioner was served with notice under Section 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C. which would indicate that even he was not required to be arrested. He would further point out that

3 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc

externment proposal was cancelled without assigning any reason. He would submit that in-camera statements of anonymous witnesses are liable to be discarded as they are not verified by the detaining authority and they are chance witnesses. According to learned Counsel there is no material to indicate that the activities of the petitioner are detrimental to public order.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the matter of Ashokrao s/o Uttamrao Pawar & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Writ Petition No.738/2022.

5. Learned APP would support the impugned orders on the basis of affidavit-in-reply of the respondent no.2. She submits that all the relevant material has been taken into account weeding out extraneous material by the detaining authority. It is further submitted that in a writ jurisdiction there is very limited scope for judicial revenue of the subjective satisfaction. She would submit that statements of the anonymous witnesses were verified by a higher police officer and the detaining authority has properly dealt with this aspect in the order of detention. She would submit that the purport of notice under Section 41(A)(1) has been considered by this Court in the matter of Vinod Dhannulal Jaiswal Vs. District Magistrate, Aurangabad and Ors. , AIR Online 2024 Bom 105. It is further submitted that due statutory compliances and time line have been followed by the respondents.

4 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc

6. Having considered rival submissions and having gone through the papers, at the outset we have to clarify that the petitioner seeks to challenge impugned order on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. We had an occasion to deal with purport of service of notice under Section 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C. on the detenue in the matter of Vinod Dhannulal Jaiswal (supra). In that judgment it has been held specially in paragraph no.35 and 36 that service of notice under Section 41(A)(1) on the detenue instead of his arrest would not be mitigating factor. We are therefore not inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioner in this regard.

7. The FIR in C.R. No.501/2023 was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 08.10.2023. Another C.R. No.674/2023 was registered under Sections 341, 385, 323, 504, 506 of IPC on 19.12.2023. It is the submission of the petitioner that both the offences do not disclose any danger to the public order and the ordinary penal law would be sufficient to deal with them. In the first offence petitioner was found drunk while driving vehicle and he was holding a dagger. In another offence, he was found to be involved in robbery and assault. The last offence would fall under Chapter XVI and XVII of IPC. Both the offences are covered by definition of Section 2(b)(1) of ‘dangerous person’. We cannot examine the veracity of the allegations.

8. We have considered both the in-camera statements recorded on

5 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc

21.12.2023. In the statement of witness-A it is stated that the petitioner was in habit of extracting money from random people. The witness was accosted and demanded money, has was abused and slapped. Another witness-B would also state on the same line. He cites instance of pick pocketing of the petitioner. We find that there is no animosity of the petitioner with the witnesses but still he is found to have indulged in the overact of extracting money and abused and assaulted ordinary people. We find that both the statements have been verified by Sub-Divisional Police Officer on 22.12.2023. The detaining authority has recorded specific finding in paragraph no.12 of the grounds of detention, verifying reliability of the statements. Additionally we find that the detaining authority has explained in paragraph no.12 and 13 of reply that both the statements have been duly verified and the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. We find that both the statements are reliable.

9. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Ashokrao s/o Uttamrao Pawar & Another (supra). We have considered paragraph no.20 of the judgment. It is distinguishable on facts. In the case in hand not only detaining authority has recorded satisfaction in the grounds of detention but also reaffirmed in affidavit-in-reply. We find no merit in the submission of the petitioner.

10. It transpires from record that the cumulative effect of offences pitted against the petitioner and in-camera statements is that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has created terror in the vicinity.

6 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc

The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is founded on logical appreciation of material, consideration of the relevant material and application of mind. If the subjective satisfaction is tested on the touchstone of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the latest judgment in the matter of Nenavath Bujji Etc. Vs. State of Telangana , AIR 2024 SC 1610, we do not find any fault with it.

11. There are limitation for judicial review of the subjective satisfaction. We are not exercising appellate jurisdiction. The appreciation of material or the substitution of the view is impermissible. Learned APP has rightly submitted that no case is made out to indicate that subjective satisfaction is arbitrary, ex facie perverse or grossly unreasonable.

12. Though specific grounds have not been raised by the petitioner in the petition regarding statutory compliance, we have examined the matter from that angle also. Last offence was registered against the petitioner on 19.12.2023. In-camera statements were recorded on 21.12.2023. They were verified on next day. Impugned order was passed on 28.12.2023. We find no delay in passing impugned order.

13. After passing impugned order, it was approved under Section 3(3) of the act on 05.01.2024, which is within period of 12 days. Impugned order was confirmed on 21.02.2024. We find that there is due compliance of Section 8, 10 and 11.

14. The above analysis would indicate that no case is made out to upset

7 1027.Cri.WP-576-2024.doc

the impugned orders. We, therefore, dismiss the Criminal Writ Petition. Rule is discharged.

SHAILESH P. BRAHME

JUDGE

MANGESH S. PATIL JUDGE

Na J eeb…

Cite this judgement

Sayyed Junaid Sayyed Abdul Qadeer v. the State of Maharashtra and Others, WP/576/2024 (BOM), decided on 10 May 2024.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited3

Ashokrao s/o Uttamrao Pawar & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersDistinguished¶35
Vinod Dhannulal Jaiswal Vs. District Magistrate, Aurangabad and Ors.Followed¶38
Nenavath Bujji Etc. Vs. State of TelanganaApplied¶46

Open Authorities

Statutes9

Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act)Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act Act, 1981 · 2(b)(1) · 3(3) · 8, 10, 11
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)41(A)(1)
Arms Act4/25
Motor Vehicles Act185

View all statutes

Procedural history7

Order of detention dated 20.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2/detaining authority (District Collector, Hingoli) under the MPDA Act holding the petitioner to be a 'dangerous person' on the basis of two offences and two in-camera statements, together with the order of confirmation dated 21.02.2024 passed by respondent no.1.Respondent No.2 - District Collector, Hingoli (detaining authority); confirmation by Respondent No.1 - Secretary, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai · 20.12.2023
FIR in C.R. No.501/2023 registered against the petitioner on 08.10.2023 for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (allegedly found drunk while driving and holding a dagger).
C.R. No.674/2023 registered on 19.12.2023 under Sections 341, 385, 323, 504, 506 of IPC (robbery and assault, falling under Chapters XVI and XVII IPC).

View full history

Bench / Coram

Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme

Parties & counsel