Abhijit @ Chokya Tukaram Yelwande vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Mahesh Chavan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1299 OF 2025

Abhijit @ Chokya Tukaram Yelwande Age : 28 years, Occu.: Residing at Room No. 5, Jadhav Chawl, Near Kakade Palace, Karvenagar, Pune. (At present Nashik Prison) … Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, Pune.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra (Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai.)

¶8

The Superintendent of Jail Nashik Central Prison, Nashik. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Samay Pawar with Mr. Yash Fadtare, Mr. Nitin Rai, Mr. N. Kadam i/b. Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent- State.

¶10

Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAYKASHINATHNANOSKAR KASHINATHNANOSKARDate:2025.10.27 18:36:55 +0530

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE : 3^rd OCTOBER 2025.

¶12

JUDGMENT [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J] :-

¶13

By the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶14

of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the Detention Order, bearing No. O. W. No./CRIME PCB/DET/WARJE MALWADI/YELWANDE/986/2024 dated 4^th

¶15

1/5

¶16

Mahesh Chavan WP-1299-2025.doc

¶17

December 2024 (the Detention Order), issued under Section 3(2) 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 (MPDA Act) and the Order of Committal of even date, thereby detaining the Petitioner in the Nashik Central Prison, Nashik. The Petitioner being detained seeks a direction for being released and set at liberty.

¶18

By Order dated 21^st March 2025, this Court issued Rule in the Petition. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3, have filed their respective Affidavit in replies dated 27^th March, 2025, 3^rd April, 2025 and 20^th March 2025 respectively, dealing with the contentions/grounds raised by the Petitioner and opposed the Petition.

¶19

We have heard Mr. Samay Pawar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. J .P Yagnik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. Perused the record and the Affidavits in Reply.

¶20

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, though the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has raised various grounds in paragraph No.5 (a) to 5 (s) in the Petition, for challenging the Detention Order dated 4^th December 2024, however, he has mainly argued that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority, is misplaced and unfounded on the ground of delay. Further, elaborating the said point, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the Detention Order is based on two offences i.e. C. R.

¶21

2/5

¶22

Mahesh Chavan WP-1299-2025.doc

¶23

No.275/2024 registered on 8^th July 2024 and C. R. No.360/2024 registered on 11^th September 2024, both with Warje Malwadi Police Station and two incamera statements, recorded on 29^th October 2024 and 23^rd October 2024 for the incidents pertainining to 9^th September 2024 and 19^th October 2024 respectively. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner was arrested on 11^th September 2024 in relation to C. R. No. 360/2024 and granted bail on 19^th September 2024. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner further points out that, the in-camera statement of witness ‘A” was recorded on 29^st October 2024, pertain to incident dated 9^th September 2024. It is submitted that, from the date of getting bail i.e. 19^th September 2024, there is a delay of 40 days in recording statement of witness ‘A’. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Detention Order dated 4^th December 2024, is passed after 36 days, from the date of the last in-camera statement dated

¶24

29^th October 2024. In view of the delay, the Detention Order is vitiated. Learned Advocate also submits that, it appears, that the delay has not been considered by the Detaining Authority.

¶25

Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State, in reply, states that though the Petitioner was released on bail on 19^th September 2024 and the incamera statement of witness ‘A’ was recorded on 29^th October 2024, the subjective satisfaction is correctly arrived at, after considering the two crimes and the two in-camera statements and the acts of the Petitioner which clearly indicate that the Petitioner’s activities are prejudicial to the public order and

¶26

3/5

¶27

Mahesh Chavan WP-1299-2025.doc

¶28

disrupt the normal life and the even tempo of the society.

¶29

From a perusal of the record, it appears that, the ground of delay in issuing Detention Order appears to be well founded. Petitioner was released on bail on 19^th September 2024 and after being released on bail, the two in camera statements of witness ‘A’ and ‘B’ are recorded on 29^th October 2024 and 23^rd October 2024, which clearly indicates the delay. It is pertinent to note that, in the facts of the present case, the unexplained delay in recording the in camera statements will have a bearing on the Detention Order. We have noted, that the Detenu was on bail, when the in-camera statements of the witnesses were recorded. The recording of the in-camera statements, after the Petitioner being released on bail, will clearly demolish the apprehension of the Detaining Authorities for the need of preventive detention.

¶30

Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that, there is an unexplained delay in the present matter in recording the in-camera statements and the purpose of preventive detention is defeated. On the ground of unexplained delay, the basis of the Detention Order is misplaced. Further, if the dates of the registration of the crimes, date of incidents, dates of the in-camera statements and Petitioner’s release on bail are all considered together, the Detention order appears to be untenable and misplaced. Under the preventive detention laws, personal liberty of individual is curtailed and at stake, in summary procedure i.e. without a trial. The swift and immediate action is the very need and basis for a preventive detention order.

¶31

4/5

¶32

Mahesh Chavan WP-1299-2025.doc

¶33

Unexplained delay, cannot be the basis of a preventive detention order.

¶34