Jitendra @ Tiger Umaji Pawar vs Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w. Ms. Anjali Raut for the Petitioner. Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Ananda H. Bhilare, PSI, Thane Crime Branch present.

¶12

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE , JJ. DATED : 1^st DECEMBER, 2025.

¶13

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

¶14

Petitioner has impugned Detention Order dated 16^th July, 2025, bearing No.TC/PD/DO/MPDA/10/2025, issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities

¶15

of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video

1/6

Amk

45-wp 4647-25-J.doc

Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Maharashtra Act No. 55 LV of 1981) (Amendment-2015) (for short ‘MPDA’) and the Committal Order of the even date, thereby directing his detention in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Heard Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused entire record and the Affidavits filed by the Respondent-Authorities.

¶21

Though in the Petition, the Petitioner has taken various grounds while assailing the Order of Detention dated 16^th July, 2025, learned Advocate for the Petitioner restricted her challenge to Ground (e) raised in the Petition. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the complete text of the bail Order dated 17^th May, 2025, was not either placed before the Detaining Authority or supplied to the Petitioner along with grounds of detention and therefore at the first instance subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority stands vitiated and secondly right of the Petitioner to make effective representation as contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is impaired and therefore the Detention Order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

1. Perusal of record indicates that, the impugned Detention

¶23

2/6

¶24

Amk 45-wp 4647-25-J.doc

¶25

Order is based on one crime and two in-camera statements of the concerned witnesses. The Petitioner is an accused in C. R. No. 320/2025 dated 21^st April, 2025 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath under Sections 109, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, r/w Sections 3, 25 of the Arm Act r/w Sections 37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. In the said crime, the Petitioner was arrested on 23^rd April, 2025 and was granted bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 16^th may, 2025. After completing necessary formalities, the Petitioner was actually released from jail on 20^th May, 2025. In the Index annexed to the Order of Detention, at Serial No.27 mentions the Order dated 17^th May, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan granting bail to the Petitioner. Perusal of record indicates that, it is only the operative part of the Order which is supplied to the Petitioner along with documents annexed to the Detention Order and the complete text of it is not supplied to him. Perusal of record further indicates that, the Sponsoring Authority while submitting its proposal to the Detaining Authority had also produced operative part of the Order before it and not the complete text of the Order granting bail to the Petitioner.

¶26

The co-ordinate Bench in the case of Lakhan Rohidas Jagtap Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors. reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 5261 in Paragraph No.7 held as under:-

3/6

45-wp 4647-25-J.doc

Amk

“7. We have appreciated the rival contentions so also perused the original record pertains to the case of the Petitioner and the grounds taken in the Petition and replies filed by Respondents. Admittedly, only the operative part of the bail order granting bail to the Petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 21.12.2018 was placed before the detaining authority, and not the full text of the order. Therefore, the detaining authority had no occasion to apply his mind to the reasons for granting bail to the Petitioner / Detenu before recording the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention. It was incumbent on the part of the sponsoring authority to place full text of the order granting bail to the Petitioner / Detenu before the detaining authority before passing the detention order. It is true that there is a casual reference in the grounds supplied to detenu while passing the order of detention to the extend that the detenu filed the application for bail in connection with the aforesaid crime and bail was granted to him however, it is an admitted position that the reasoning part of the order of granting bail was not placed before the said authority and copy of the said order was not furnished to the detenu. Therefore, we find considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner / Detenu that the concern authority has no occasion to apply his mind to the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court while granting bail and therefore, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated and in absence of full text of the bail order since not supplied to detenu, he is deprived of making an effective representation against the order of detention.”

4/6

45-wp 4647-25-J.doc

Amk

Sub paragraph 1 of Paragraph No.11 of the Affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority mentions that, the said Order having outward No. 2287/2025 is annexed at page No.99 to the proposal. The Affidavits filed by the Sponsoring Authority and Detaining Authority are silent on the fact that, whether the complete text of the Bail Order was produced before the Detaining Authority or not. With the assistance of Mr. Gavand, learned APP, we have perused the entire original record and found that the complete text of Bail Order dated 17^th May, 2025 was not produced before the Detaining Authority for arriving at his subjective satisfaction for terming the Petitioner as a dangerous person as contemplated under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA.

¶35

It is thus clear from the record that, the Detaining Authority had no occasion to apply its mind to the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Bail Application No. 1083 of 2025 filed in C. R. 320/2025 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath while granting bail to the detenue and therefore subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated. That, in the absence of full text of Bail Order being not supplied to the Petitioner, he is deprived of making effective representation against the Order of Detention. The right of the Petitioner to make an effective representation contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is also impaired due to non-

5/6

45-wp 4647-25-J.doc

Amk

supply of the said reasoned Order.

¶40

1. In view of the above, a safe conclusion has to be drawn that, the Order of Detention cannot be legally sustained and therefore it is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶41

7.1) Hence, the following Order:-

¶42

(a) Detention Order dated 16^th July, 2025 bearing No. TC/PD/DO/MPDA/10/2025 issued by the Respondent No.1, is quashed and set aside.

¶43

(b) Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶44

(c) Petitioner be released from Jail forthwith, if not required in any other case/cases, on production of an authenticated copy of the operative part of this Judgment.

¶45

(d) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶46

(e) All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of

¶47

operative part of this Judgment.

¶48

(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

¶49

6/6

Jitendra @ Tiger Umaji Pawar v. Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Tiger Umaji Pawar v. Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Parvez Fazaluddin Shaikh vs District Magistrate, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Mehboob Abdul Gaffar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Bhausaheb Kalaskar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kumudini Bhaskaran vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijayalaxmi Jayand Kumar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurav Dharmendra Anand vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.