Allowed¶36

Sameer @ Panna Mehboob Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2025WP/1136/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MPDA Act preventive detention; section 3(2) MPDA; dangerous person section 2(b-1); unexplained delay in recording in-camera statements after release on bail; quashing of detention order; delay of 70 days; Kolhapur Central Prison; Kondhwa Police Station C.R. No.633 of 2024; Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar 1993 Supp (3) SCC 61; Austin William Luis Pinto 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 28; Daksh Juber Ghelani WP 3994/2023; Article 226 writ petition; Bombay High Court.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order No.OW.NO./CRIME PCB/DET/KONDHWA/SHAIKH/1009/2024 dated 13th December 2024 quashed and set aside; Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (b); Petitioner to be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case/cases, on production of an authenticated copy of the Order; Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ¶36

Sameer @ Panna Mehboob Shaikh vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Detention Order dated 13th December 2024 issued under section 3(2) of the MPDA Act is liable to be quashed on the ground of unexplained delay of about 70 days between the Petitioner's release on bail (29th August 2024) and the recording of the in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' (7th-8th November 2024).

¶16

Court's answer

The delay of about 70 days in recording the in-camera statements of witnesses (from 29th August 2024, when the Petitioner was released on bail, to 8th November 2024, when the last in-camera statement of witness 'A' was recorded) has not been explained by the Detaining Authority either in the Grounds of Detention or in its Affidavit dated 12th April 2025, nor has any plausible and satisfactory explanation been offered by the Sponsoring Authority or the Detaining Authority.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar and the decisions of this Court in Austin William Luis Pinto and Daksh Juber Ghelani, the Detention Order deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of unexplained delay of about 70 days from 29th August 2024 to 8th November 2024.

¶27

Key takeaways

As there is unexplained delay of 70 days in issuing the Detention Order, the purpose and object of the MPDA Act is not met; had the Authorities considered the Petitioner a 'dangerous person' under section 2(b-1), they ought to have taken effective steps swiftly to detain him.ratio¶30
The overall effect of the Court's discussion is that the Detention Order is vitiated on account of delay and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: A.S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, JJ.; judgment per A.S. Gadkari, J.) quashed, in a writ petition under Article 226, a detention order dated 13th December 2024 (No.OW.NO./CRIME PCB/DET/KONDHWA/SHAIKH/1009/2024) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City under section 3(2) of the MPDA Act against Sameer @ Panna Mehboob Shaikh, solely on the ground of unexplained delay of about 70 days between the detenu's release on regular bail on 29th August 2024 (in C.R. No.633 of 2024, Kondhwa Police Station) and the recording of the in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' on 7th-8th November 2024. The Detaining Authority offered no explanation for the delay either in the Grounds of Detention or in its Affidavit dated 12th April 2025. Following Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi (1993 Supp (3) SCC 61) and this Court's decisions in Austin William Luis Pinto (2005 ALL MR (Cri) 28) and Daksh Juber Ghelani (Writ Petition No.3994/2023, decided 4th April 2024), the Court held that the unexplained delay vitiated the order and defeated the purpose and object of the Act; the Petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

¶1

SKN/dtg

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1136 OF 2025

¶5

Sameer @ Panna Mehboob Shaikh Age- 22 year. R/at- Lane No.1, Room No.8, Near Bismillah Masjid, Green Park Kondhwa. A present Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur. … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.

¶8

Commissioner of Police, Pune City Sadhu Wasvani Road Camp, Pune. … Respondents

¶9

Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut for the Petitioner. Mr .Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE : 20^th SEPTEMBER 2025

¶11

JUDGMENT.:- (Per : A.S. Gadkari, J.) :-

¶12

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a detenu, has impugned the Detention Order dated 13^th December 2024 bearing No.OW.NO./CRIME PCB/DET/ KONDHWA/ SHAIKH/ 1009/2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2, under section 3(2) of

¶13

1/5

¶14

SKN/dtg 70-WP-1136.25-Judgment.doc

¶15

the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Maha. Act No LV of 1981) (Amendment -1996, 2009, 2015) (for short “MPDA Act”) and the Order of Committal of even date, thereby detaining him in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur.

¶16

Heard Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused entire record produced before us and the Affidavits in Reply filed by the Respondent Authorities. 3) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, though the Petitioner has taken various grounds in the Petition, while challenging the Order of Detention, she restricts her argument and assail the Detention Order on the ground of delay of 70 days in issuing it, from the date of recording of in-camera statements of the concerned witnesses.

¶17

Record indicates that, along with the Detention Order dated 13^th December 2024, the Petitioner was also served with the Grounds of Detention dated 13^th December 2024. Perusal of Grounds of detention reveals that, to term the Petitioner as a dangerous person as contemplated under section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, the Sponsoring Authority has taken into consideration and based its conclusions on one crime i.e. C.R. No.633 of 2024 registered with Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, dated 2^nd June 2022 under sections 326, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal

¶18

2/5

¶19

SKN/dtg 70-WP-1136.25-Judgment.doc

¶20

Code, under section 4(25) of the Arms Act and under section 37(1)(3)/135 of the MPA and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', recorded on 8^th November 2024 and 7^th November 2024 respectively. The last incamera statement of the witness ‘A’ is admittedly recorded on 8^th November 2024.

¶21

It be noted here that, in the said C.R. No.633 of 2024, the Petitioner was initially absconding and was arrested on 19^th August 2024. The Petitioner was released on regular bail by the competent Court on 29^th August 2024. As noted earlier, the last in-camera statement of witness 'A' was recorded on 8^th November 2024. The Sponsoring Authority as also the Detaining Authority have not offered any plausible and satisfactory explanation about the delay in recording the in-camera statement of witness 'A' on 8^th November 2024 from 29^th August 2024 i.e. belatedly after about 70 days. The delay of about 70 days in recording the in-camera statements of witnesses has not been explained by the Detaining Authority either in the Grounds of detention or in its Affidavit dated 12^th April 2025.

¶22

In the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi and others reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 61, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its anguish about the fact that, the statements of witnesses were recorded only after the detenu became successful in getting bail from the concerned Court. It is further held that the unexplained delay, whether short or long, especially when the detenu has taken a specific plea of delay,

¶23

3/5

¶24

SKN/dtg 70-WP-1136.25-Judgment.doc

¶25

has to be explained properly. This Court in the cases of Austin William Luis Pinto Vs Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai & Ors., reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 28 and Daksh Juber Ghelani v. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City & Ors (Writ Petition No.3994/2023 decided on 4^th April 2024) has also granted benefit of unexplained delay, to the detenus therein.

¶26

As noted earlier, in the case in hand also the Petitioner was released on bail on 29^th August 2024 and the in-camera statements of two witnesses were recorded on 7^th November 2024 and 8^th November 2024. Undoubtedly there is delay of about 70 days in recording the in-camera statements of said witnesses, namely, 'A' and 'B'. The Detaining Authority i.e. the Respondent No.2 has not given and/or offered any explanation for the said delay.

¶27

In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar (supra) and the decisions of this Court in the cases of Austin William Luis Pinto (supra) and Daksh Juber Ghelani (supra), the Detention Order deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of unexplained delay of about 70 days from 29^th August 2024 to 8^th November 2024. According to us, if the Sponsoring Authority so also the Detaining Authority were of the opinion that, the Petitioner is a ‘dangerous person’ as defined in section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, the concerned Authorities for preventing the Petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order ought to have taken effective

¶28

4/5

¶29

SKN/dtg 70-WP-1136.25-Judgment.doc

¶30

steps swiftly to detain him under the provisions of the said Act. As there is unexplained delay of 70 days in issuing the Detaining Order, according to us, the purpose and object of the Act is not met. The overall effect of the aforesaid discussion is that the Detention Order is vitiated on account of delay and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶31