Amol Pandurang Sawant vs State Of Maharashtra

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

The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order No. TC/PD/DO/MPDA/33/2025 dated 18^th December 2025 passed by Respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Police, Thane, under the provisions of the Maharashtra [Prevention of Dangerous Activities] Act, 1981 (for short, “MPDA Act”). Along with the detention Order, Committal Order was passed and the Petitioner was directed to be detained in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.

Heard, Mr. Saurabh Ghag, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

The Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention along with the Detention Order. The grounds of detention run into 18 paragraphs. In paragraph 2, it is recorded that, according to the Petitioner’s criminal record, he was a dangerous criminal and had taken to the life of a criminal for the sake of easy money and to show his upper hand in the areas within the jurisdiction of Vitthalwadi Police Station in Thane Commissionerate.

In paragraph 3, it is mentioned that he was moving about in the above areas armed with different weapons, committing crimes like causing hurt, threatening to take life, attempt to commit murder, etc. These offences are punishable under the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, “BNS”) and the Maharashtra Police Act. He was indulging in criminal mischief and intimidating persons in the above localities. It is further mentioned that, these activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the locality of Thane Commissionerate.

Paragraph 3 thereafter, enumerates 6 offences from the year 2022 to 2025 registered at Vitthalwadi Police Station under various provisions of IPC, BNS and Maharashtra Police Act. The said paragraph also refers to the preventive measures. First one is Chapter Case No. 58/2023 under Section 110(e)(g) of Cr.P.C., in which preventive action was taken. The second was an externment proposal, but it was cancelled on 18^th November 2025 and, instead, the Detention Order was passed.

Paragraph 3 is significant because it refers to the averments which are as follows:

Paragraph 4 then refers to C.R. No. 593 of 2025 dated 31^st August 2025 in respect of the incident dated 29^th August 2025, in which the Petitioner and his three associates had assaulted the complainant therein.

The second registered offence is C.R. No. 610 of 2025 in respect of an incident registered with Vitthalwadi Police Station on 8^th September 2025, mainly under Section 109 of the BNS. In respect of the incident dated 8^th September 2025. The Petitioner and his associates had assaulted the complainant. The Petitioner had assaulted the complainant with a sword on his head.

Paragraph 5 refers to the in-camera statement of two witnesses. The first in-camera statement is in respect of witness “A”. It is in respect of an incident which took place in October 2025, which was in the nature of extortion, and the Petitioner had allegedly taken Rs. 1,500/- from the witness.

The second in-camera-statement is in respect of witness “B”. It is in respect of the incident that had taken place in the 1st week of November 2025, which was also in the nature of extortion, and the Petitioner had allegedly taken Rs. 1600/- from the witness “B”.

Paragraph 6 records that, from those facts, the Respondent No. 2 was satisfied that the Petitioner was a “Dangerous Person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act, and that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 2 had taken two contrary stands in paragraphs 3 and 6. In paragraph 3, he had referred to the past activities to base his satisfaction, whereas in paragraph 6, the Respondent No. 2 has mentioned that he has based his satisfaction on the two registered offences and two in-camera-statements mentioned in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5. He submitted that this showed non-application of mind and, therefore, prayed for setting aside the detention Order. It also affected the Petitioner’s right to make earliest effective representation.

Learned APP, on the other hand, defended the Detention Order. He submitted that the past activities were mentioned only as a preamble and were reflected in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. He submitted that, the detaining Authority specifically relied upon the two registered offences and two in-camera statements mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5.

We have considered these submissions. Though the Respondent No. 2 had referred to paragraphs 2 and 3 as the preamble introduction, however paragraph 3 specifically mentioned that the facts mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 were “not only relied upon by him while forming his subjective satisfaction” (emphasis supplied) to issue the present Detention Order. He had thus taken those past activities into consideration while forming his subjective satisfaction. In addition, he had taken into consideration the material mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5, and the two registered offences and two in-camera statements, to arrive at his subjective satisfaction. These two stands are clearly contrary to each other. The subjective satisfaction was also based on the past activities mentioned in paragraph 3, wherein six registered offences and two preventive measures taken against the Petitioner were mentioned. No necessary material was provided in the grounds of detention in respect of those six registered offences and the two preventive measures. All this has affected the Petitioner’s right to make earliest effective representation and, therefore, on this ground, the continued detention of the Petitioner would not be permissible.

In this view of the matter, the detention Order is liable to be set aside.

Hence, the following order:

ii) The detention Order dated 18^th December 2025 bearing No. TC/PD/DO/MPDA/33/2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 – the Commissioner of Police, Thane is quashed and set aside.

iii) The Petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.