Kapil S/O Ramesh Bhati v. The State Of Mah. Home Dept. (Special), Thr. Its So, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 And Another

1/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.806/2021 Kapil s/o Ramesh Bhati, Age 23 years, occ.-Labour, R/o Near Upadhey Building, Belpura, Rukhmini nagar, Amravati. ....Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), through its Section Officer, Second Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32.

2. Commissioner of Police Amravati (City), Amravati. ....Respondents. **************************************************************************************************** Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv for petitioner.

Mr. Doifode, APP for State.

***************************************************************************************************** CORAM : M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ. DATE : 23-12-2021.

Oral Judgment (Per-M.S. Sonak, J.) Heard Mr. Sirpurkar learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Doifode, learned APP for the State.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the impugned detention order dated 30-09-2021.

3.

Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel has urged only one ground in support of this petition. He has urged that in this case the detention order is based on two offences i.e Crime No.296/2021 and Crime

2/5 No.919/2021. In both these cases the petitioner had been enlarged on bail. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel submits that the impugned detention order does not show any application of mind on the aspect why detention order had to be issued dispute the petitioner being enlarged on bail in the two cases relied upon. He submits that non consideration of this vital aspect or non application of mind to this vital aspect vitiates the detention order.

4.

Mr. Doifode, learned APP for the State submits that on the reading of the impugned detention order it is quite clear that the detaining authority was not only aware of the fact that the petitioner had been enlarged on bail in the two cases relied upon but further the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that despite such release the activities of the petitioner that posed a serious danger to public order, continued unabated. He further submits that the detention order is required to be read its entirety, and, so read it is clear that the detaining authority had applied its mind to this aspect. He therefore submits that this petition may be dismissed. 5.

We have considered the rival contentions so also perused the impugned detention order and other material on record. In this case we are satisfied that the ground on which the detention has been questioned

3/5 must fail.

6.

Admittedly in this case, the detaining authority was completely aware of the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in two cases relied upon by the detaining authority to make the order of preventive detention. Record indicates that the bail orders were duly considered by the detaining authority and it is precisely for this reason, even the copies of bail orders were communicated to the petitioner so there should not be any doubt in the mind of the detenue about detaining authority having not taken into consideration the bail orders. 7.

Thereafter, the impugned detention order specifically refers to the factum of the release of the petitioner on bail but then proceeds to record that the activities of the petitioner that pose a danger to public, continue unabated. There is reference to disobedience of externment orders. There is specific statement in the impugned detention order about how the activities of the detenue cannot be prevented by simple preventive action under Cr.P.C. There is reference to how the detenee had been arrested by various police officers in the crimes made earlier but there was no change in his criminal behaviour. Besides there is reference to in-camera statements. There is reference to how the witnesses are not ready to come forward and depose against the petitioner and in similar matters.

4/5 8.

True, there is no specific statement in the impugned detention order that despite release of the petitioner on bail, there is no change in his behaviour. However mere absence of such a specific statement does not nullify the effect of several other statements on record and in the detention order which have the same effect. Ultimately the phrases to be used by the detaining authority are never determinative of the matter one way or the other. If on a reading of the detention order in its entirety, it is apparent that the detaining authority has satisfied itself about need to make order for preventive detention in spite of the fact that the detenue being enlarged on bail, then, in the exercise of our powers of judicial review, normally it is not for us to interfere.

The sufficiency of the material is not something that we are required to or can go into while exercising the powers of our judicial review. This is certainly not a case of absence of any material or some case of non application of mind to vital and relevant considerations. In the absence of the petitioner succeeding to make out a case of this nature, we are afraid that we will not in a position to interfere with the impugned detention order.

9.

Since no other ground was urged in support of the petition, we dismiss this petition. There shall be no order for costs.

5/5 (Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.) Deshmukh