Avinash Gopal Shilimkar v. The State of Maharashtra

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, Pune at the instance of Sinhgad Police Station, Pune in C. R. No.664/2024

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Akola District Prison. … Respondents Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

RESERVED ON: 12th NOVEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 14th NOVEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J]:-

1) By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Order of Detention dated 26th December, 2024, being O. W. No.

CRIME PCB/DET/NANDED CITY/SHILIMKAR/1041/ 2024 (Detention Order) passed by the Respondent No.2, 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 of the Committal Order of even date whereby the Petitioner has been detained in the Akola District Prison, Akola. The Petitioner prays that, he be released and set at liberty.

2) By an Order dated 2nd May 2025, this Court has issued Rule in the petition. The Respondent Authorities have filed their Affidavits-in-Reply, wherein they have opposed the Petition on various grounds.

3) Heard Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. Perused the Affidavits-in-reply filed by the Respondents and the record before us.

4) Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has raised various grounds in the Petition for challenging the Detention Order but has restricted his arguments to only one ground i.e. that the in-camera statements should be verified by the Detaining Authority itself. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, in-camera statement of witness ‘A’ and witness ‘B’, have been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sinhgad Road Division, Pune City. He submits that, the Detaining Authority, has only seen, the verification for both in-camera statements. He submits that, the in-camera statements should be personally verified by the Detaining Authority himself. In the alternative, he submits that, in-camera statements ought to be verified jointly by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Detaining Authority. He submits that, the Detaining Authority should have at least personally verified the in-camera statements by speaking/having a dialogue with the Assistant Commissioner of Police. That, the fact of the incamera statements been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is not mentioned in the Detention Order.

4.1) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameena Begum vs. The State of Telangana & Ors., arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.8510 of 2023, dated 4th September, 2023 and whilst referring to Paragraph No.16 of the said Judgment submitted that, the Detaining Authority must satisfy the Court that, it acted in accordance with the law. That, while passing the Detention Order the requirements of the law have to be strictly observed and that, in the event there is a slightest breach in following the requirements of the law, this Court should not hesitate to strike down the Order of Detention. In short, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, in-camera statements ought to have been personally verified by the Detaining Authority. On this ground, he calls in question the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and submits that the same is vitiated.

5) Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State submits that, the Detention Order dated 26th December, 2024 has in fact relied upon and referred to the in-camera statements in the Detention Order. That, both the incamera statements have been enclosed with the grounds of Detention and provided to the Petitioner. That, the gist of the in-camera statements is stated in the Detention Order. That, the in-camera statements have been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and a report to that effect has been forwarded to the Detaining Authority. The same is enclosed with the grounds of detention and served upon the Petitioner. Learned APP relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Shaw vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan and Anr., reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 334 and submit that, it would not be open to the detenu to ask the court to consider as to whether the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority can be justified by the application of the objective test. That, the reasonableness of the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority cannot be questioned. That, the Detention order is well founded and the in camera statements have been properly verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. That, the Detaining Authority has considered the entire proposal, the verification and the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police on verification etc and arrived at its subjective satisfaction.

6) We have considered the arguments advanced before us and minutely perused the Grounds of Detention, the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the verification of in-camera statements. Perusal of it, indicates that, the in-camera statements have been properly and personally verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and that the said fact is also stated in the Grounds of Detention. It is an admitted position that, both the in-camera statements alongwith the verification by the Assistant Commissioner of Police has been enclosed with the grounds of Detention and served upon the Petitioner. This is obviously done with an object of ensuring that, the Petitioner has been informed of and is aware of the grounds of detention and has with him all the material which is relied upon/used, in support of the Detention Order.

7) We have minutely perused the verification of both the in-camera statements. We note that, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has personally interacted with the witnesses, confirmed that the statements have been given without any fear or pressure and are voluntarily. We have also noted that, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has personally visited the spot of incidence and made enquiries with the persons residing in the said area/vicinity and with the shopkeepers, who have confirmed the incidents, which have been narrated in the in-camera statements. As noted earlier, both the in-camera statements and the verifications have been forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, as a part of the report to the Detaining Authority. The report enclosed with the grounds of detention, has been served upon the Petitioner.

8) The Detaining Authority, before giving approval to the proposal, himself considers all the documents which are relied upon including the incameral statements and the verifications thereof. In the grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has specifically noted and acknowledged the fact that, he has seen the verification of the in camera statements. Further, the Detaining Authority in Paragraph No. 6 of the grounds of Detention has specifically recorded that, the Senior Police Inspector of Nanded City Police Station has conducted the confidential inquiry and recorded in-camera statements. Further, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sinhagad Road Division, Pune City has verified the said in-camera statements and the statements of the witnesses revealed the recent criminal activities of the Petitioner classifying him as a 'dangerous person', were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of Detention specifically records that, the in camera statements of the witnesses except the identifying particulars are enclosed therewith, to enable the Petitioner to make an effective representation. The Detention Order in Paragraph No 9 specifically records as required under Section 8 of the MPDA Act read with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the grounds on which Detention Order is based have been communicated alongwith copies of the documents, which were placed before the Detaining Authority, except identifying particulars of the witnesses, which cannot be furnished to the Petitioner in public interest under Clause 8(2) of the MPDA Act read with Article 22(6) of the Constitution of India.

9) We have also noted the fact that, in Paragraph No. 9 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has verified the truthfulness and genuineness of the incidents, narrated in the in-camera statements of witness 'A' and 'B' and submitted a report. In the said report, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has mentioned that the facts given in the statements are true. The Detaining Authority further specifically states that, after perusing the said report and statements, the Detaining Authority is satisfied that, the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by witness 'A' and 'B' are true and reasonable.