Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 710 OF 2025
Atish Arun Chandne
Age 20 years
Near Padmajapark, S.R.A. Building
A wing, Room No. 109, Laketown Building Katraj, Pune
(At present Chandrapur Central Prison) …..Petitioner
2. The State of Maharashtra
3. The Superintendent
Chandrapur Central Prison .….Respondents
-----
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut - Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand - APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Counsel Ms. Tripathi for the Petitioner and learned APP Shri Gavand for the Respondent-State. 1 of 12
2. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 07.08.2024 bearing no. CRIMEPCB/DET/BHRATIVIDYAPITH/ CHANDNE/636/2024 issued under Section 3 of 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 (for short M.P.D.A.).
3. The detenue was served with a committal order on the same date. The Petitioner was also served with grounds of detention dated 07.08.2024. The grounds of detention were translated into Marathi, and were also served on the Petitioner.
4. The grounds of the detention are divided into different paragraphs. In paragraph no. 3, the Detaining Authority i.e. the Respondent No. 1- the Commissioner of Police, Pune City has mentioned the past offences i.e. CR No. 183 of 2022 registered at Bibvewadi Police Station and CR No. 543 of 2023 registered at Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station in the year 2022 and 2023 respectively. 2 of 12
5. The paragraph No. 3.[2] refers to the two preventive actions taken against the detenue. The first is Chapter case bearing No. 163 of 2023 at the instance of Bibvewadi Police Station under Section 110 (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code dated 13.02.2023, and the other important preventive action is an externment order bearing No. 15 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024 issued under Section 56 (1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Vide that order dated 23.05.2024, the Petitioner was externed from the area of Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad Police Commissionerate and Pune district for the period of two years. That order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Pune City.
6. In paragraph no. 5, the Respondent No. 1 has referred to the offences considered for passing the detention order. Apart from those registered offences, the Detaining Authority has also relied on two in-camera statements mentioned in paragraph nos. 6.[1] and 6.2.
7. In paragraph no. 4 of the grounds, he has clearly stated that he has considered the two offences and two in-camera statements of Witnesses A and B. The two registered offences are:- 3 of 12
(i) C.R. No. 134 of 2024 registered at Bharti Vidyapeeth
Police Station dated 11.02.2024, under Sections 324, 323, 506, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 (25) of the Arms Act and under Section 37 (1)(3)/135, 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act. In this case, the Petitioner was not arrested, but he was served with a notice under Section 41 (A)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(ii) C.R. No. 534 of 2024 registered at Bharti Vidyapeeth
Police Station dated 24.06.2024 under Section 4 (25) of the Arms Act and under Section 37 (1) (3)/135, 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
8. CR No. 134 of 2024 mentions about the incident dated 10.02.2024 that had taken place at around 10 p.m.. The Petitioner’s father had some quarrel with the first informant. In that case the informant was beaten by the Petitioner’s father. The Petitioner came there and assaulted on the informant’s head with iron rod causing 4 of 12 oozing of blood. The people in the area gathered to rescue the informant, but the Petitioner waved the iron rod and threatened to kill them. Because of his terror, the people ran away and closed their houses.
9. In case of CR No. 534 of 2024, the incident is dated 24.06.2024. The first informant was head constable Dhamdhere. He was on patrolling duty. He received information that the Petitioner who was an externed accused was creating terror by waving an iron sickle near SRA building, Bibvewadi, Pune. The Police staff went to the spot and saw that the Petitioner was waving a sickle and abusing the citizens and creating terror. The narration of this incident further makes a reference to the Detaining Authority's observation that as the Petitioner had violated preventive orders, the F.I.R. was lodged. In this connection, the Petitioner was arrested on 24.06.2024 and was granted Magistral Custody upto 6th July 2024. The Detaining Authority has recorded his awareness that the Petitioner was granted bail in connection with C.R. No. 534 of 2024.
10. Apart from these two registered offences, there are in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. The witness A has stated about the incident dated 05.06.2024 which had taken place at around 10.15 5 of 12 p.m.. In that incident, the Petitioner had put a knife on witness A’s throat and had removed Rs. 730/- from his pocket. There is a reference that while this incident was taking place, three to four persons came towards them, but they were threatened by the Petitioner. This statement was recorded on 27.06.2024, and it was 09.07.2024.
11. The statement of the witness B was recorded on 01.07.2024 in respect of the incident dated 23.06.2024 which had taken place at around 11.00 p.m.. It was a similar incident. At that time, the Petitioner by showing the sickle had removed Rs. 670/- from the pocket of this witness. Even at that stage, the people in the locality ran away. This statement was verified by the same authority on 09.07.2024. This is the material based on which the detention order was passed.
12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions:- According to her, she has taken a ground (d) in the petition that the Detaining Authority had issued the detention order 6 of 12 without cancelling the externment order. Two parallel preventive actions could not be taken up by the authorities. The situation had created confusion in the mind of the detenue, as to whether he was still externed while being detained and if after his release from detention, he would still be externed. This has created confusion affecting his right to make effective representation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that this also shows non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. No reasons are given as to why more drastic preventive action was taken, when the earlier preventive action in the nature of an externment order was still in force. She submitted that the authority should have first cancelled the externment proceedings and then if necessary, they could have initiated the proposal for detaining the Petitioner. She submitted that there is variance between the grounds provided in English and the Marathi translation of the grounds in respect of the bail granted to the Petitioner, in respect of C.R. NO. 534 of 2024. She submitted that the C.R. No. 134 of 2024 pertains to the incident dated 10.02.2024 and the detention order is passed on 07.08.2024. Therefore, that offence obviously is quite old and 7 of 12 therefore, it could not have formed the basis for passing the detention order. Even the second incident concerning C.R. No. 534 of 2024 is dated 24.06.2024 and does not bear close proximity to the passing of the detention order. She submits that the in-camera statements do not show that the public order was affected. The incidents were strictly between the Petitioner and the private individuals. The public at large was not involved.
13. The learned APP on the other hand submitted that since the preventive action of externing the Petitioner did not have a deterring effect, it was necessary to pass the detention order. The Petitioner had violated the externment order and committed the offence registered vide C.R. No. 534 of 2024. Therefore, it was necessary for the Detaining Authority to pass the detention order because the externment order was not having any effect on the Petitioner.
14. The learned APP further submitted that there was a continuous common thread between the two registered offences and the incamera statements, therefore, it cannot be said that the incident pertaining to CR No. 134 of 2024 being stale, could not have been used by the Detaining Authority to base his subjective satisfaction about the necessity of detaining the Petitioner. 8 of 12
15. Learned APP further submitted that the grounds of the detention in English and those in Marathi do not show any significant variance as far as the bail granted in C.R. No. 534 of 2024 is concerned. In the first offence i.e. CR 134 of 2024, the Petitioner was not arrested.
16. We have considered these submissions. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has laid much emphasis on the fact that the detention order was passed while the externment order was still in force, but the record shows that C.R. No. 534 of 2024 registered at Bharti Vidyapeeth. The officers on the patrolling duty had received an information that the Petitioner was terrorizing the people in the locality. He had in fact entered the area from which he was externed and then committed this offence. It was quite clear that he was arrested from the area from which he was externed and therefore, he has violated the externment order. Quite clearly, this shows that the externment order had no effect on the Petitioner. Therefore, the Detaining Authority very rightly accepted this position as a necessity to pass the detention order. It cannot be said that once the externment order is in force then in no circumstances the detention order can be passed. In this particular case, the Petitioner had 9 of 12 violated the externment order by entering into the area from which he was externed and in fact committed an offence by threatening people. In fact that had left the Detaining Authority and the sponsoring authority with no other option, but to initiate the detention proceedings and passing the detention order.
17. We find nothing wrong in the procedure employed by the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority. In the above circumstances, we are unable to accept the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the passing of the detention order shows non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority as the externment order was already in force. We do not see how it has created confusion in the mind of the Petitioner for making effective representation. It was quite obvious that the second offence was registered when he had violated the externment order. There was no scope for even arguing that it had created confusion in the mind of the Petitioner. The effect of the externment order is totally independent of the period of the detention, which would eventually get over within a period of one year from the date of the detention order dated 07.08.2024. 10 of 12
18. The Petitioner of course was at liberty to challenge the externment order. The Detaining Authority was not precluded from detaining the Petitioner only because the externment order was in force.
19. We have perused the grounds provided in English and translated Marathi grounds. We do not find any significant variance with reference to the bail granted to the Petitioner in connection with C.R. No. 534 of 2024. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in that behalf are not acceptable.
20. As far as the incidents described by Witnesses A and B are concerned, in both these instances, those witnesses have clearly stated as to how the members of the public who were present near the spot were affected, and they were threatened by weapons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the incident involved the Petitioner and only the individual witnesses A and B. We are unable to accept that in those instances except Witnesses A and B separately, nobody else was affected. On all these counts, we are unable to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner for setting aside the detention order. The two registered offences and the two in-camera statements show that there was common thread 11 of 12 and live link in all these incidents. Therefore, it can not be said that the Detaining Authority has considered stale incidents.
21. With the result, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)