Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

january 2025

Bombay High Court · 2025-01-09

SANDESH ALIAS SHILVYA LAJRAS CHOPADE vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS

Citation / case number
WPST/21695/2024
Court
Bombay High Court
Petitioner
SANDESH ALIAS SHILVYA LAJRAS CHOPADE
Respondent
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

LSP 1 904wpst 21695.24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (st) No. 21695 of 2024 Sandesh alias Shilvya Lajras Chopade R/o. Amardeep Colony, Jyotiba Nagar Kalewadi, Pune. … Petitioner V/s. Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad 2. The State of Maharashtra (Through Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of Maharashtra) 3. The Superintendent Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. … Respondents. Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w. Anjali Raut for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Gawand, APP for State. Digitally signed by LATA CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI S.M. MODAK, J PANJWANI Date: 2025.01.13 18:41:52 +0530 DATE : 09 January 2025. JUDGMENT (Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J): The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the detention order bearing No.PCB/DET/26/2024 dated 16 February 2024 issued 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 LSP 2 904wpst 21695.24.doc ‘M.P.D.A. Act’). The petitioner was detained by the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad i.e. respondent No.1 on 16 February 2024. On the same day Committal order was passed directing the petitioner to be detained in Yerwada Central Prison,Yerwada,Pune. The petitioner was served with grounds of detention dated 16 February 2024. In Paragraph-3, thirteen registered offences right from the year 2013 to 2022 at various police stations viz. Pimpri, Sangavi, Wakad and Nigade were mentioned. Certain preventive actions taken in the past are also mentioned, however, respondent No.1 had specifically mentioned in Paragraph 3.2 that he had not relied on the

SANDESH ALIAS SHILVYA LAJRAS CHOPADE vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS · Niyam