Toukir Qureshi S/O Nehmat Qureshi v. Commissioner Of Police Nagpur City, Nagput And Another
2025:BHC-NAG:1959-DB 1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024 Toukir Qureshi alias Chintu S/o Nehmat Qureshi, Age about 22 years, Occ.- Labour, R/o Quarter No.MPA/288/AB, Ajani Railway Quarter, In front of Water Tank, Ajani, Nagpur, ( At present in Nagpur Central Prison) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra, Through Under Secretary, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai.
... Respondents Shri Saurabh Singha, holding for Shri R.K. Tiwari, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents. CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : 25 th FEBRUARY, 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE) :
1.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21st March, 2024 and the order dated 28th March, 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police as well
2 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt as the State Government 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 of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the MPDA Act'). In order to appreciate the challenge of the petitioner to the said orders, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. 2.
The petitioner is resident of Ajni, Nagpur. Between the period from 2019 till 2023, following seven criminal cases were registered against the petitioner in different Police Stations of Nagpur City involving offences, such as dacoity, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation and possession of illegal weapons. Sr.No. P. Stn. & Cr. No. Under Section Date of Offence C.C. No. & Remarks Date Beltarodi 60/2019 364, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 506 I.P.C.
r/w 135 Maharashtra Police Act 15/03/2019 240/2019 06/06/2019 Court Pending Ajni 401/2019 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C.. r/w 4/25 Arms Act, 135 Maharahtra Police Act.
26/08/2019 197/2020 26/06/2020 Court Pending
3 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt Ajni N.C.R.
No.92/2020 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
14/01/2020 - - Ajni 468/2020 143, 147, 148, 149, 294, 336, 427, 506-B IPC.
12/09/2020 3994/2020 28/12/2020 Court Pending Sonegaon 102/2021 394, 325, 294, 448, 452, 427, 34 I.P.C.
02/07/2021 4380/2021 09/11/2021 Court Pending Ajni 415/2021 399, 402 I.P.C.
r/w 4/25 Arms Act, 135, 142 Maharashtra Police Act.
13/08/2021 4118/2021 13/12/2021 Court Pending Ajni 99/2023 394, 294, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C.
18/02/2023 218/2024 15/01/2024 Court Pending In order to prevent the petitioner from engaging in criminal activities, the police on 11th December, 2020 initiated preventive action under Sections 107 and 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with habitual offenders. 3.
An F.I.R., viz. Crime No.337 of 2023, was lodged against the petitioner on 21st August, 2023 for an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner along with his associates allegedly committed a violent robbery at Best Super Bazar, Congress Nagar, Nagpur. The accused threatened the complainant as well as the public with a knife causing severe panic and endangering public safety. The petitioner was arrested on 25th August, 2023 in connection with the aforesaid crime number.
4 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt 4.
The petitioner on 26th September, 2023 was granted bail and was released from the custody. Again, another criminal case, viz. Crime No.719 of 2023, for offences under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner on 26th October, 2023 and he was arrested on the same day. The petitioner was granted bail by the Court in connection with the aforesaid Crime No.719 of 2023. 5.
The Commissioner of Police on 21st March, 2024 passed an order of detention against the petitioner under Section 3 of the MPDA Act. The grounds of detention along with the list of documents and copies of statements were supplied to the petitioner. The State Government on 28th March, 2024 confirmed the order of detention. Hence, this petition.
6.
Shri Saurabh Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Detaining Authority did not consider the order dated 26th September, 2023 by which the petitioner was released on bail and did not satisfy itself as to why despite reasons given by the competent court to grant bail to the detenu, it is still necessary to exercise the power of detention. It is further submitted that there is no live link between the order of detention and the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the activities
5 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt of the petitioner do not amount to threat to public order and therefore the order of detention is bad in law. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 2nd August, 2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No.10 of 2022 (Hrithik S/o Sudhir Borkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another).
7.
On the other hand, Shri M.K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents, while inviting attention to the order of detention submitted that the contention that the order dated 26th September, 2023 granting bail to the petitioner has not been considered by the Detaining Authority, is factually incorrect. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a weapon-wielding, dangerous offender indulging in criminal activities that foster terror in the Society. It is further submitted that since 2019, the petitioner has been continuously engaging himself in commission of violent activities. It is also pointed out that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore the Detaining Authority after duly taking into consideration the crimes registered against the petitioner arrived at the satisfaction that the order of detention needs to be passed against the petitioner. It is argued that the subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the
6 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt Detaining Authority by assigning valid and cogent reasons and in case the detenue is released, he has the propensity and potentiality to engage in the offences again, which will endanger the public order. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments :
(i) Golam Hussain alias Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others [(1974) 4 SCC 530].
(ii) Arjun Balkrishna Sonavane v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 316.
(iii) Bhushan Vijay Rane v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2066.
(iv) Pravin alias Bhayya Pratap Shinde v. Commissioner of Police, Pune, 2020(3) ABR (Cri) 733.
(v) Pravin Ganpat Kakad v. Commissioner of Police and others, 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 1475.
8.
We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is well settled law that preventive detention is not punitive but a precautionary measure. Its object is not to punish a person, but to prevent him from doing any illegal activity which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The power of preventive detention is invoked as an anticipatory measure and same does not relate to an offence in respect of which
7 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt criminal proceedings are pending to punish a person for an offence committed by him. It is well settled legal proposition that action of the authority in detaining a person being only precautionary, the matter necessarily has to be left to the discretion of the authority. However, since the preventive detention essentially deals with curtailment of personal liberty, therefore procedural safeguard laid down by the Statute has to be strictly complied with. [See : UOI Vs. PAUL MANICKAM, AIR 2003 SC 4622, and GIMIK PIOTR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, (2010) 1 SCC 609].
9.
In the instant case, the petitioner was indulging in the activities which were prejudicial to public order in addition to the aforesaid seven criminal cases, again on 21st August, 2023 and 26th January, 2023, offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, were registered against the petitioner. The Detaining Authority took into account the pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases as well as in-camera statements of two witnesses and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has created terror in the minds of the public in the vicinity and created disturbance of public order. The Detaining Authority has further recorded a finding that the petitioner is a weapon-wielding offender, who has indulged in
8 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt the activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority taking into account the likelihood of the petitioner reverting to similar activities, which were prejudicial to maintenance of public order, came to a conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, an order of detention under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act was passed.
10.
The contention on behalf of the petitioner that the Detaining Authority did not advert to the order dated 26th September, 2023 granting bail to the petitioner is factually incorrect, as the Detaining Authority has considered the order granting bail to the petitioner in Para 10.1.4 of the order of detention. From the order of the Detaining Authority, it is evident that the Detaining Authority has recorded a statement that the petitioner who is a free man has the tendency and propensity to indulge in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future. Therefore, the contention that the activities of the petitioner do not amount to threat to public order is incorrect and the procedural safeguard laid down under the MPDA Act has been followed meticulously. The contention that there is no live and proximate link between the grounds of detention alleged by the Detaining Authority and the
9 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2024.odt purpose of detention is equally misconceived. The petitioner in the month of August 2023 has twice indulged in violent robbery and has threatened the public with knife causing severe panic and has endangered the public safety. Therefore, the contention that there is no live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is misconceived.
11.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order of detention, which has been confirmed by the State Government, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) \ Lanjewar