PESHNAWAJ ASARAR KHANversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR

                                                              1 / 13                   303-WP-1540-26.odt

                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                     WRIT PETITION NO.1540 OF 2026

                               Peshnawaj Asarar Khan                              .... Petitioner

                                            versus

                               Commissioner of Police
                               Mira Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar & Ors.                 .... Respondents
                                                             …....

                               •     Ms. Jayashree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut, Advocate for
                                     Petitioner.
                               •     Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State/Respondent.

                                                     CORAM    : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                                RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
                                                     DATE     : 01st OCTOBER, 2026

                               JUDGMENT : (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)


                               1.             The Petitioner has challenged the detention order

                                    dated    22/11/2025,     passed    by   the   Respondent        No.1,

                                    Commissioner of Police, Mira Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar. By a

                                    separate committal order dated 22/11/2025, the Petitioner was

                                    directed to be detained in Thane Central Prison, Thane.

MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR

Digitally signed               2.             Heard Ms. Jayashree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
by MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.10.08
11:12:35 +0530
                                    Petitioner and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for the State.

                   Nesarikar
                              2 / 13                 303-WP-1540-26.odt




3.            The detention order was served along with the grounds

     of detention on the Petitioner. The grounds of detention run into

     14 paragraphs. In paragraph 3, a list of six past offences is

     mentioned from the year 2021 up to 2025. They were registered

     at Nayanagar and Kashimira Police Stations. There is reference

     to two externment proceedings taken against him in the years

     2022 and 2023. On both these occasions, he was externed from

     Thane, Palghar, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, and Raigad Districts for

     a period of 6 months each. The grounds of detention specifically

     mention that two offences in particular were taken into

     consideration and relied upon for passing the detention order.

     They are as follows:



              (1)   CR No.170 of 2025, registered at Nayanagar
                    Police Station on 24/05/2025 under Sections
                    109, 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 118(1),
                    118(2), 351(2), 351(3), and 352 of the BNS.
                    The Petitioner was arrested on 25/05/2025 and
                    was subsequently released on bail.


              (2)   CR No.390 of 2025, registered at Kashimira
                              3 / 13                 303-WP-1540-26.odt

                     Police Station under Sections 351(2), 352,
                     324(4), 329(4) of BNS, dated 05/09/2025. In
                     this case, he was not arrested, but notice was
                     issued to him on 08/09/2025.



4.            Besides these two registered offences, the Respondent

     No.1 relied on statements of two witnesses recorded 'In-camera'.

     Witness 'A' gave a statement regarding an incident dated

     19/10/2025, and Witness 'B' gave a statement in respect of an

     incident which had taken place about two months prior to the

     recording of his statement. Both these incidents were in the

     nature of issuing threats and committing the offence of

     extortion. However, both these witnesses did not come forward

     to lodge FIR.



5.            The registered offences were mentioned in paragraph

     Nos.5.1 and 5.2, and the statements of the two witnesses were

     mentioned in paragraph Nos. 6.1 and 6.2.



6.            The detention order was passed based on these four

     incidents. Though the Petitioner has raised many points in the
                           4 / 13                     303-WP-1540-26.odt

Petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioner restricted her

arguments to ground (e) raised in the Petition, which reads as

follows :-



        “e. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining
              authority has taken C. R. No. 170 of 2025 u/sec 109,
              115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 118(1),118(2), 352,
              351(2) 352(3) dated 24.05.2025 to arrive at his
              subjective satisfaction and pass the detention order.
              The petitioner submits that in the narration of the
              relied on C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 170 of 2025 in the
              grounds of detention, the complainant is one Mr.
              Kaif Aftab Khan, Age 19 years who has given the
              complaint and registered the F.I.R. on 24.05.2025,
              the complainant has alleged the petitioner of attempt
              to murder on him and his friend by inflicting serious
              injuries. The petitioner submits that on a scrutiny of
              the documents furnished to the petitioner no
              statement of complainant or any other witness
              corroborating the said incident and any injury
              certificate and or medical yadi etc is given/furnished
              to the detenu. Statement of the complainant, witness
              statement, injury certificate etc., are vital documents
              that the detaining authority may have considered
              before arriving at a satisfaction that the petitioner is
              a dangerous person. Although chargesheet in the
                                5 / 13                    303-WP-1540-26.odt

                   said C.R is filed on 27.09.2025 incomplete set of
                   documents is furnished to the detenu, thereby the
                   petitioner is deprived of making any effective
                   representation. In any given case the above
                   mentioned documents are the most vital and
                   important. Non furnishing vital document also
                   amounts to non-communication of grounds of
                   detention vitiating the first facet of Article 22(5) of
                   the Constitution of India, as a result of non-
                   furnishing vital document the petitioner is also
                   deprived of making any effective representation
                   against the order of detention, thus vitiating the
                   second facet of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
                   India. Thus both the facets of Article 22(5) of
                   Constitution of India is vitiated. The order of
                   detention is illegal and bad in law for non-supply of
                   vital and most important document, liable to be
                   quashed and set aside.”


7.            Learned counsel submitted that if the Respondent No.1

     had issued the detention order based on CR No.170 of 2025,

     then, firstly, he had to consider all the papers of investigation in

     respect of that offence, and secondly, all the vital documents

     pertaining to the said offence were required to be served on the

     Petitioner to enable him to make an effective representation
                                 6 / 13                    303-WP-1540-26.odt

     before the Respondent No.1, the Advisory Board and the State of

     Maharashtra. But the Petitioner was not given the vital

     documents, which are mentioned in ground (e) of the Petition.



8.            Learned APP, on the other hand, relied on the affidavit

     of the Respondent No.1. The detaining authority has dealt with

     ground (e) raised by the Petitioner in the memo of the Petition

     in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the affidavit-in-reply. These

     paragraphs are as under :



            “11)          With reference to para no. 5(e) of the Petition,
                   it is submitted that the detention order came to be
                   passed after subjective satisfaction on the basis of
                   the material placed before me. The grounds of
                   detention furnished to the detenu clearly disclosed
                   the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the
                   detenu, and the basis on which the Detaining
                   Authority formed its subjective satisfaction.


                          With regards to Nayanagar PS Cr.No 170 of
                   2025 the FIR was registered on 24/05/2025 and
                   detention order passed on 22/11/2025. Subsequently
                   upon     completion    of    the   investigation,   the
                   chargesheet was filed on 15/12/2025. At the time of
               7 / 13                  303-WP-1540-26.odt

passing detention order following documents have
been given to detenue and his sign has been
obtained as acknowledgement. a) FIR b) Remand
report c) Bail application d) I.O to say on bail
application e) APP to say on bail application f) Bail
Order g) Release order h) Surety bond paper i)
Arrest form etc. bearing page No. 89 to 123 in the
proposal.
      Cr. No. 390/2025 registered on 05/09/2025 at
Kashimira Police Station. After completion of
investigation, chargesheet was filed on 27/09/2025.
In this Crime following documents have been given
to detenue and his sign has been obtained as
acknowledgement Chargesheet, b) F.I.R., c) Spot
Panchnama, d) e Saksh Certificate, e) Statement of
Witnesses, f) Notice for accused u/s 35(3) of
B.N.S.S,       g)   Complaint   application   of     the
complainant, h) Summons to complainant, i) e-
application of complainant, j) Medical papers of
complainant etc. bearing page No. 125 to 187 in the
proposal.


      I submit that we are ready to provide medical
certificate,    with    statements   and   any     other
documents.


      I further say that in para 10 of the Detention
Order, I have specifically informed the detenue that
                  8 / 13                     303-WP-1540-26.odt

      he can move the representation to me in case he has
      any complaint about the documents, however no
      such representation was made.


           I say that the non-supply of the said
      documents at the initial stage was neither deliberate
      nor intentional. I further say and submit that the
      aforesaid documents are only corroborative and
      supportive in nature and do not constitute separate
      or independent grounds of detention.


12)        The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
      Authority was not based solely upon any individual
      statement, medical certificate but upon the entirety
      of the material placed before it. Merely because
      certain documents came to be supplied subsequently
      during the pendency of the present proceedings, the
      same would not ipso facto vitiate the order of
      detention. I deny that there is any violation of the
      first facet or second facet of Article 22(5) of the
      Constitution of India. I deny that there is any non-
      communication of grounds of detention or that the
      petitioner was deprived of making an effective
      representation. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, I
      say and submit that if the petitioner still requires
      any additional copies of documents, we are ready
      and willing to furnish the same.
                                9 / 13                 303-WP-1540-26.odt

9.             Learned APP therefore submitted that there is no

     infirmity in the detention order, and the Petitioner was supplied

     with all the documents. He was offered an opportunity to ask for

     the vital documents, which he did not avail of, and therefore, he

     cannot claim that those documents were not given to him,

     affecting his right to make an effective representation.



10.            We have considered the submissions. The grounds of

     detention are accompanied by various documents. They are

     described in the index of the compilation. Part 1 of the

     compilation given to the Petitioner is in reference to the Marathi

     translation of the detention order, the committal order, and the

     grounds of detention.



11.            Part 2 is with reference to the documents pertaining to

     CR No.170 of 2025 registered at Nayanagar Police Station and

     CR No.390 of 2025 registered with Kashimira Police Station.



12.            Part 3 refers to the two ‘In-Camera’ statements of

     witness ‘A’ and witness ‘B’.
                           10 / 13                 303-WP-1540-26.odt

13.        Part 2 includes the documents pertaining to CR No.170

  of 2025 registered at Nayanagar Police Station. Those

  documents are from page Nos. 45 to 79 of the compilation. We

  have perused those documents. Those documents are the First

  Information Report, which also includes the gist of the

  informant’s statement recorded in column No.12. There are

  remand applications, orders passed on the remand applications,

  application for bail preferred by the Petitioner, the say given by

  the Prosecution, and finally, the order granting bail to the

  Petitioner. The order was passed by the learned JMFC, Mira-

  Bhayandar on 17/06/2025. The other documents are the bail

  bond. These are the only documents given to the Petitioner.



14.        These documents do not include the statements of the

  witnesses, the eyewitnesses, the Panchas, the injury certificate,

  etc. It is not even clear whether the detaining authority had

  perused the other documents of investigation. The affidavit-in-

  reply does not mention that apart from the documents given to

  the Petitioner, whether other documents were considered or not

  by the detaining authority. Some of those documents were
                             11 / 13               303-WP-1540-26.odt

  definitely vital documents viz. the injury certificates and

  statements of eyewitnesses. However, the detaining authority

  has made no reference as to whether he had applied his mind

  with reference to those documents. If he had indeed applied his

  mind to those documents, then it was all the more necessary to

  have supplied those documents to the Petitioner, so that he

  could make an effective representation in respect of that

  particular offence.



15.        Therefore, we find substance in the submissions of the

  learned counsel for the Petitioner that the important and vital

  documents pertaining to CR No.170 of 2025 registered at

  Nayanagar Police Station were essential to be supplied to the

  Petitioner. Non-supply of those documents has affected the

  Petitioner's right to make an earliest effective representation.

  The   affidavit-in-reply   mentions   that   non-supply   of   the

  documents at the initial stage was neither deliberate nor

  intentional. This cannot be an explanation for non-supply of the

  documents because it affects the valuable right of the Petitioner

  to make an effective representation. Offering to supply those
                           12 / 13                303-WP-1540-26.odt

  documents if the Petitioner had demanded it, cannot be an

  acceptable explanation. The Petitioner had to be afforded an

  opportunity to make effective representation at ‘the earliest’.

  Offering to provide them subsequently affects his valuable right

  to make effective earliest representation.



16.         It is further mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply that

  those documents were only corroborative and supportive in

  nature and do not constitute separate or independent grounds of

  detention. From this submission, there are indications that the

  detaining authority was aware as to what were those

  documents. Otherwise, he would not be in a position to observe

  that those documents were only corroborative and supportive in

  nature. If he had considered those documents, it was all the

  more necessary for him to have supplied those documents to the

  Petitioner.



17.         Thus, we find that there is a clear violation of the

  Petitioner's valuable right to make an effective representation.

  On this ground alone, the Petition deserves to succeed.
                         13 / 13                 303-WP-1540-26.odt




18.      Hence, the following order :


                           ORDER


         (i)    The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
                clause (b), which reads as follows -


                “(b). The order of Detention bearing No.CP-MB-
                      VV/MPDA/02/2025         Dated    22.11.2025
                      issued under Section 3 of M.P.D.A. Act
                      1981 by the Respondent No.1 be quashed
                      and set aside and on quashing the same
                      the Petitioner be ordered for release
                      forthwith;”


         (ii)   The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not
                required in any other case.


         (iii) The Petition is disposed of.




(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)         (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)