VIJAY RAMDAS BENDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) We find from the grounds of detention that two crimes, bearing No. 126 of 2022 and 293 of 2021 each of which registered for an offence punishable under Ss. 65(d) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 at Police Station Brahmanwada Thadi, Amravati Rural were not considered to be so serious by the Police as to warrant arrest of the petitioner in each of these crimes. If this is so, in our view, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that when a particular criminal activity of the detenue is not considered to be so serious as to warrant his arrest under the regular law, his detention under the law relating to preventive detention would be wholly unjustified. This is also the view taken by this Court and also Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases as Vasudev Mahadev Surve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 592 of 2021, decided on 16/12/2021, Hanif Karim Laluwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 75 of 2022, decided on 28/6/2022, Kasam Kalu Nimsurwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 269 of 2022, decided on 26/7/2022 and Akshay Kishor Madavi Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 258 of 2022, decided on 19/8/2022.