Nagpur :- Division Bench presided over Nitin W. Sambre and Vrushali V. Joshi JJ have quashed and set aside order of detention dated 12-04-2024 passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Gondia thereby detaining him under sec 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.
Adv Mir Nagman Ali appearing for Dhiraj Prakash Beriyekar submitted that, certain cases were registered against the petitioner, only one case is considered for passing the detention order. i.e. Crime no 1 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Sec 460, 394, 427 of IPC r/w Sec 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and the two statements of the confidential witnesses.
Adv Mir Nagman Ali argued that the detention order issued against the accused lacks a “live-link” with the alleged crime due to an unreasonable delay in its issuance.
According to the case details, the incident in question took place on January 1, 2024, at around 3:30 a.m. in Tiroda, Gondia district. The petitioner, along with two accomplices, allegedly entered the office of Taj Traders, threatened those present, and vandalized vehicles parked outside. They reportedly stole ₹52,000 from the vehicles and an additional ₹8,000 from a driver, whom they also assaulted.
The complaint was filed the following day by the Diwanji of Taj Traders, leading to the petitioner’s arrest. However, the detention order was not issued until April 12, 2024, raising concerns about the justification for the delay.
Serious concerns have been raised over the validity of a detention order issued against the petitioner, as key procedural lapses have come to light.
A review of the detention grounds reveals that only one offence was considered, yet there is no mention of whether the petitioner was out on bail. Furthermore, no bail order has been placed on record, raising doubts about the authority’s subjective satisfaction in justifying the detention.
Additionally, two in-camera witness statements were cited, but masked copies of these statements were not provided to the petitioner. While a gist of the statements is included in the detention grounds, it remains unclear whether they were duly verified by the authorities. The statements from witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ are of a general nature, with witness ‘B’ failing to make any specific allegations against the petitioner.
The case reportedly stems from a quarrel over a liquor shop, where locals objected to the strong odor of alcohol, which they claimed caused inconvenience. The petitioner allegedly responded with threats and abusive language. However, both witness statements make identical claims, raising further questions about their credibility.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor has strongly defended the detention order, arguing that the petitioner is a habitual offender who poses a serious threat to public safety.
According to the prosecution, despite previous preventive actions taken against him, the petitioner has repeatedly violated the terms and conditions imposed. In-camera witness statements further indicate that he continues to engage in criminal activities, showing no intent to reform.
Addressing concerns about the non-disclosure of confidential witness statements, the prosecution clarified that there is no legal requirement to provide these statements to the petitioner, as they are sealed to maintain confidentiality. Therefore, the petitioner’s argument regarding non-supply of these documents holds no merit.
The prosecution further emphasized that the petitioner has been involved in crimes involving the use of sharp weapons, demonstrating a disregard for the law. Considering these factors, the detaining authority had sufficient grounds to issue the order, ensuring public safety and law enforcement integrity.
After listening both the side court observed that the questions are being raised over the validity of a detention order due to delays and procedural lapses, particularly regarding the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.
Legal experts emphasize that subjective satisfaction is a fundamental requirement for issuing a detention order. It must be based on a thorough evaluation of all relevant facts, both individually and collectively, alongside the available evidence. However, in this case, while past offences were mentioned in the grounds of detention, the authority itself stated that these were not considered in making the decision. As a result, their relevance in establishing a “live-link” remains questionable.
A key concern is the lack of transparency regarding witness statements. The petitioner was not provided with masked copies, making it impossible to verify whether the statements were properly recorded and authenticated. Additionally, while the detention order relies on a crime committed on January 1, 2024, it was not issued until April 12, 2024—a significant delay.
In response, the authorities have attempted to justify the delay, stating that the incidents referenced in the statements occurred between January and February. However, the official reply fails to specify when the statements were recorded, and the absence of these documents in court further raises doubts about the justification for the prolonged delay.
For the given reasons Justice Vrushali Joshi and Justice Nitin Sambre allowed the writ petition of Dhiraj Prakash Beriyekar represented by Adv Mir Nagman Ali.
