Allowed¶36

Manish S/O Nandkishor Hatwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Home Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Other

Bombay HC2 Jan 2025WP/1035/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MPDA Act preventive detention quashed; Section 3(1) MPDA Act 1981; detention order dated 28.11.2024 by District Magistrate Bhandara set aside; no subjective satisfaction; non-application of mind; non-consideration of bail order; delay in lodging FIR; public order versus law and order; in-camera statements insufficient; Crime No. 655/2024; Sections 395, 364-A, 365 IPC; extortion and ransom allegations; petitioner Manish Hatwar; Criminal Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2024; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; 2025:BHC-NAG:2125-DB; release direction; Rule made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 28.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2 quashed and set aside; petitioner directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime; Rule made absolute in those terms. ¶36

Manish S/O Nandkishor Hatwar vs the State of Maharashtra through Home Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Other — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention order dated 28.11.2024 passed under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act by the District Magistrate, Bhandara suffers from non-application of mind and departure from the statutory procedure, including non-consideration of the bail order and its contents. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The Detaining Authority failed to consider the bail order and the reasons for release on bail — the delay in lodging the FIR and the complainant's payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner in the interregnum; had the authority gone through the reason given in the bail application, it would not have passed the detention order.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

There was no application of mind or subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order; the order passed by the detaining authority is therefore required to be set aside.

¶29

Key takeaways

The two in-camera statements relied upon — extortion of Rs.500/- for consuming liquor, and showing a knife during a quarrel and telling the witness to mind his own business — do not create any disturbance of public order situation.ratio¶28
Though the detention order proceeded on one crime, respondent No.2's reply asserted that two crimes (including Crime No.631/2024) were considered, which shows the casual approach of respondent No.2 in submitting the reply to the petition.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Preventive detention — MPDA Act, 1981, S. 3(1) — Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (DB: Vrushali V. Joshi & Nitin W. Sambre, JJ.; judgment per Joshi J.), Criminal Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2024, decided 27.02.2025 (2025:BHC-NAG:2125-DB): Detention order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhandara against the petitioner (Manish Hatwar), founded on Crime No. 655/2024 (Sections 395, 364-A and 365 IPC) and two in-camera statements, quashed. Held: the Detaining Authority did not consider the bail order or its reasons — the FIR was lodged after a delay, the complainant having paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner in the interregnum and the report following eight to nine days later; only one offence was considered while one of four other offences shown as pending had in fact ended in acquittal; and the in-camera statements (extortion of Rs. 500/- for liquor; display of a knife during a quarrel) did not disclose any disturbance of public order. There was thus no application of mind or subjective satisfaction; the detention order was set aside and the petitioner directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other crime.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:2125-DB

¶2

1 crwp.1035.24-J.odt

¶3

N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1035 OF 2024

¶5

Shri Manish s/o. Nandkishor Hatwar, Aged about – 24 Years, Occ.- Labour, R/o. Sahakar Nagar, Bhandara, District – Bhandara. ... PETITIONER

¶6

...VERSUS...

¶7

State of Maharashtra, Through Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 40032.

¶8

The Office of Collector & District Magistrate, Bhandara.

¶9

Superintendent, District Prison, Wardha.

¶10

Police Inspector, Police Station, Bhandara. ... RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. S. A. Shrivastava and Mr. M. P. Ladhe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.

¶12

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 07.02.2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 27.02.2025

¶13

JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):-

¶14

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶15

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 28.11.2024, passed under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and

¶17

2 crwp.1035.24-J.odt

¶18

Person Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as “MPDA Act”) by the District Magistrate, Bhandara.

¶19

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the respondents.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 on the ground that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind and that the order was passed without adhering to the statutory procedure. The grounds of detention appear to have been based on one offence namely, Crime No.655/2024 registered with Bhandara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 364-A and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The Detaining Authority has also considered the in-camera statements of two witnesses. It is submitted that the Detaining Authority had not considered that in the said offence, which is still pending before the Trial Court, the petitioner has been released on bail. Additionally, the contents in the bail orders were also not considered by the detaining authority. The contents of the case would show that the law and order situation was disturbed and not public order which required the detention of the petitioner. Further, there was no proper verification of the in-camera statements by the Detaining Authority and only on the basis of the general statements made by the witnesses, an order cannot be passed.

¶21

3 crwp.1035.24-J.odt

¶22

The learned A.P.P. has filed reply and by supporting the order passed by the authority, opposed the petition.

¶23

It appears that though the order was passed considering one crime, the respondent has stated that two crimes are considered while passing the detention order. Crime No.631/2024 is also considered by the respondent No.2 while replying to the petition, which shows the casual approach of the respondent No.2 while submitting reply to the petition.

¶24

It is to be noted from the detention order that the crime which is taken into consideration is for the offences punishable under Section 395, 364-A and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The present case is for extortion and ransom. The allegations which are made are that the complainant, when he was going with his friend to return the money, the petitioner came there along with his friend and beat the complainant and forcibly took Rs.50,000/- from his pocket and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and again took Rs.2,50,000/- from him. The said crime was under investigation when the order was passed. In this case, the main contention of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was on bail, the reason for releasing him on bail is not considered. On perusal of bail order, it appears that he was released on bail as though the incident took place on 27.06.2024, the First Information Report came to be lodged on 05.07.2024. There is delay in lodging the First Information Report. In the meanwhile, the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/-

¶25

to the petitioner and after eight to nine days, the report was lodged and

¶26

4 crwp.1035.24-J.odt

¶27

therefore, he was released on bail. Had the authority gone through the reason given in the bail application, he would not have passed the detention order. Only one offence is considered. Out of other four offences which are registered against the petitioner, in one of the offences, which the authority has shown the same to be pending in Court, the petitioner was acquitted in that offence. Therefore, there is no application of mind or subjective satisfaction.

¶28

Two statements on which the authority has relied are again about extortion. The witness has stated about extortion of Rs.500/- for consuming liquor and witness B has stated that when there was a dispute between the petitioner and his companions, he asked him not to quarrel there and at that time, he showed the knife and asked him to mind his own business otherwise he would make his game. On perusal of both the statements, it appears that it does not create any disturbance of public order situation.

¶29

In view of the abovesaid observations, there is no subjective satisfaction while passing the detention order. Hence, the order passed by the detaining authority is required to be set aside.

¶30

The petition deserves to be allowed.

¶31

We hereby quash and set aside the detention order dated

¶32

28.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2.

¶33

5 crwp.1035.24-J.odt

¶34

The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any

¶35

other crime.

¶36

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶37

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶38

Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE RGurnule Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/03/2025 10:56:53

Manish S/O Nandkishor Hatwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Home Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish S/O Nandkishor Hatwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Home Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manish S/O Nandkishor Hatwar vs the State of Maharashtra through Home Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Other

Rushikant Yogeshwar Charjan vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Kalmeshwar Dist Nagpur and Another

Mohit S/O Shankarrao Shende and Others Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Sau. Mamta W/O Sadashiv Khobragade Vs Zilla Parishad, Gondia through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Syed Jawwad Husain S/O Syed Imdad Husain Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Gurucharan Jagdambprasad Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. Mantralaya Mumbai and 3 Others