An Individual Can't Be Subjected To Preventive Detention Just Because They Participated In Political Rally Which Turned Violent: Bombay HC

Just because an individual participated in a political rally and the same turned violent later will not be a ground to initiate preventive detention process against them, said the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court while ordering the release of a man booked for participating in a rally demanding reservations to the Maratha Community. A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit Joshi noted that the petitioner before it was booked in a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on October 31, 2023 for participating in a political rally demanding Maratha Reservation and subsequently, the rally turned violent. The bench noted that the FIR was lodged against 600 to 700 unknown persons and 50 identified persons of which the petitioner was one. However, only the petitioner, who is accused of pelting stones on a shop during the violent protests, was subjected to 'preventive detention' under 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)."Undisputedly the said FIR is registered in relation to protest in support of demand for Maratha Reservation. It appears that the petitioner was part of a political rally which took ugly violent turn. It is surprising that on the basis of such FIRs, the authority (District Magistrate) has arrived at subjective satisfaction to take drastic action against the petitioner of placing him under preventive detention. There can be absolutely no justification for curtailing liberty of an individual merely on the ground of participation in a political rally, although the same may have taken ugly violent turn," the bench said in its January 14 order. The District Magistrate, the bench said, did not record that the petitioner was the person, who had organised the said rally or that he was the person, who instigated violence during the rally. "It is true that the CCTV footage records that the petitioner was seen pelting stone on a shop during the course of violence, the panchnama shows such acts were committed by other persons as well. It is quite possible that when the protest took violent turn some wrong was committed by the petitioner at the heat of moment. However, that by itself, cannot be a ground to curtail his liberty by placing him under preventive detention," the bench recorded in its order. Further, the bench noted that the police authorities have invoked sections 307 (attempt to murder) 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with various provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. "The petitioner was not found with any explosive substance or any dangerous weapon. He was merely seen pelting stone. On that basis, he could not have been singled out for curtailing his liberty by an order of preventive detention," the bench opined. In its order, the bench noted that there was a delay of nearly eight months in passing the preventive detention order and serving the same to the petitioner and thereafter implementing it. The judges said that as a result of this delay, the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been breached. With these observations, the bench quashed the preventive detention order and directed the authorities to forthwith release the petitioner. Case Title: Nikhil Ranjwan vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 1931 of 2024)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 37Counsel for petitioner: Advocates AR Hange and RG Hange Counsel for State: Additional Public Prosecutor AD Wange Click Here To Read/Download Order

An Individual Can't Be Subjected To Preventive Detention Just Because They Participated In Political Rally Which Turned Violent: Bombay HC

Narsi Benwal

Tags