Bhuddhabhushan Bhagwan Khillare vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

JUDGMENT [Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.] :

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the detention order dated 20.05.2026 bearing No. 2026 DC-1/KAVI-272/2026/1454, passed by Respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Nanded, in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “MPDA”) as well as the approval order dated 29.05.2026 and confirmation order dated 03.07.2026 bearing No. MPDA-0526/CR-246/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 1-State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 12(1) of the MPDA. By the impugned detention order, the petitioner is directed to be detained for a period of 03 months (90 days) on the ground that the petitioner is a “dangerous person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA.

The impugned detention order has been passed on a proposal submitted by Police Inspector, Police Station-Hingoli City, Dist.-Hingoli. The proposal has been routed through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Hingoli and Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, and eventually placed before the respondent No.2 – District Magistrate, Hingoli, who claims to have arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The record reflects registration of six (06) past criminal cases, one preventive action and one externment proceeding taken against the petitioner. The reference chart showing criminal record of the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder :-

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that although six offences are registered against the petitioner, the detaining authority has considered only two recent crimes i.e. C.R. No.02 of 2026 and C.R. No.04 of 2026, both registered with Hingoli City Police Station, Hingoli on 01.01.2026, under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 127(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 352, 151(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 109,

189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 117(2), 118(1), 115(2), 132 of the BNS r/w Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act respectively, and two in-camera statements of Confidential Witnesses 'A' and 'B' to declare the petitioner as a “Dangerous Person”.

Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the impugned detention order is illegal and bad in law. It is submitted that:

There is an unexplained and unreasonable delay in passing the detention order.

The petitioner was enlarged on bail in all the offences. The detaining authority has not considered the bail order or the bail conditions while arriving at its subjective satisfaction. There is no discussion as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the bail conditions imposed upon the petitioner.

The statements of confidential witnesses “A" and "B" disclose incidents only of an individual nature and not such as to affect the public at large. At the most, the incidents depict law and order issues and not public order issues.

Learned advocate lastly submits that the detaining authority has not recorded its proper subjective satisfaction while passing the detention order and hence, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:

; 2012 Cri. L. J. 1334

! ; Criminal Writ Petition No.1706 of 2024 dated 13.01.2025

" # $ % $$ # & ' % ( ; AIROnline 2025 BOM 1585,

)$ * # + & ' , #( ; Criminal Writ Petition No.1097 of 2025 dated 24.09.2025

# + $ ; Criminal Writ Petition No.1098 of 2025 dated 20.09.2025.

Per contra, learned APP while supporting the impugned orders submits that:

All mandatory provisions have been completed in time as stipulated under the Act and there is no delay in the process or passing of the order.

The authorities have taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in all offences.

Serious offences such as attempt to murder, preparation of dacoity, illegal possession of arms, assault, etc., have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was previously externed from Hingoli District for a period of six months, however, there has been no change in his behavior and he continued his criminal activities. The action taken against the petitioner under the normal law is found to be insufficient and ineffective to deter him from indulging in criminal activities.

The in-camera statements of confidential witnesses were recorded on 24.03.2026 and were verified by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Hingoli on 28.03.2026. The statements disclose incidents which had occurred in public places and involved threats and violence, thereby affecting the public order.

Learned APP lastly submits that the detention authority has rightly reached at its subjective satisfaction necessary to detain the petitioner under the law of preventive detention and prays that the petition be dismissed.

Heard learned advocate Mr. V. S. Wakale h/f Mr. S. G. Ghongade for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. G. A. Kulkarni for the State. With the assistance of the learned advocates, we have perused the petition, affidavit-in-reply, original record and the citations relied upon by both the sides.

It is well settled that in matters of preventive detention, there must exist a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618, unexplained delay snaps the live link and vitiates the subjective satisfaction. Further, in the case of Nilofer Shaikh (supra) this Court has held that unexplained delay, whether short or long, has to be explained properly.

In the present case, the in-camera statements of confidential witnesses "A" and "B" were recorded on 24.03.2026. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Hingoli verified the statements on 28.03.2026 and forwarded the proposal to the Superintendent of Police. The proposal was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Hingoli on 06.04.2026. However, the detention order came to be passed only on 20.05.2026.

Thus, there is a gap of approximately 57 days from the date of recording the in-camera statements of confidential witness and forwarding of proposal from the sponsoring authority i.e. 24.03.2026, till the date of passing of the detention order i.e. 20.05.2026.

This delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority. It is merely stated that the time taken in the process is justifiable, without providing any specific reasons for the delay. This unexplained delay in passing the detention order snaps the live link, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

In the case of Rushikesh Bhoite (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

The Supreme Court has further observed:

Also, in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, where the detenue is already on bail, the detaining authority must possess concrete and cogent material to establish a real and imminent likelihood of the detenue indulging in prejudicial activities. Mere ipsi dixit or speculative possibility will not suffice.

Similarly, in Vishal Manik Dambe (supra), this Court held that non-placement and non-consideration of the bail order is fatal to a preventive detention order, as the detaining authority is thereby deprived of considering whether the conditions imposed by the bail court adequately prevent the alleged prejudicial activities.

In the present case, although the detaining authority was aware that the petitioner had been released on bail, the bail application and the bail order dated 20.04.2026, in Crime No.04/2026, were not properly considered. There is no discussion in the grounds of detention as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the bail conditions imposed upon the petitioner.

The specific condition imposed by the learned court while granting bail was that the petitioner shall not enter Hingoli City for a period of one month. This condition was a stringent condition which restricted the petitioner's movement. The detaining authority has not recorded any reasons as to why this bail condition was insufficient to prevent the petitioner from indulging in any prejudicial activities.

This Court in the case of Umesh Vetal (supra), held that the real possibility test is not satisfied where the grounds do not cite any post-bail act or any breach of bail conditions, and consequently, the detention cannot be sustained.

In the present case, nothing is brought on record to show that the petitioner had committed any breach of the bail conditions or that the authorities had filed for cancellation of his bail. In the absence of any such material, the detention order cannot be sustained.

It is also pertinent to note that the detention order was passed on 20.05.2026, i.e., immediately after the expiration of the bail condition imposed upon the petitioner in Crime No.04/2026. The specific condition that the petitioner shall not enter Hingoli City for a period of one month from the date of the bail order i.e. 20.04.2026, expired on 19.05.2026 and the detention order was passed on the very next day i.e. 20.05.2026.

This clearly indicates that the detaining authority had already made up its mind to detain the petitioner and merely waited for the bail condition period to expire. Such a course of action reflects complete non-preventive and not punitive and in the absence of proper application of mind to the bail status and conditions, the detention order cannot be sustained.

The distinction between "law and order" and "public order" is well established. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and also discussed in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. reported in 2023 INSC 788, breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder. In paragraph 33 the Court has observed thus:

In the present case, on perusal of the statements of confidential witnesses "A" and "B", it is clear that they disclose incidents of an individual nature. The incidents narrated by the witnesses do not indicate that the petitioner's activities affected the community at large or disturbed the even tempo of the life of the community. The statements of the confidential witnesses disclose isolated incidents of threats and intimidation. The witnesses have stated about incidents that occurred in December 2025. These are not fresh incidents and do not indicate any ongoing threat to public order. At the most, the incidents depict law and order issues, which can be dealt with under the ordinary criminal law.

Preventive detention is not a substitute for punitive action. It is a drastic measure which must be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances and with utmost care and caution.

In the present case, the detention order suffers from unexplained delay which snaps the live link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the purpose of preventive detention. The detaining authority has failed to consider the bail order and bail conditions and there is no discussion as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the bail conditions. The statements of confidential witnesses disclose incidents of an individual nature and at the most depict law and order concern. Thus, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not based on proper application of mind and is vitiated due to reliance on extraneous and irrelevant material.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order is passed :-

The Writ Petition stands allowed.

The detention order dated 20.05.2026 bearing No. 2026 DC-1/KAVI-272/2026/1454, passed by Respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Nanded approval order dated 29.05.2026 and confirmation order dated 03.07.2026 bearing No. MPDA-0526/CR-246/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 1-State Government are hereby quashed and set aside.

The Petitioner- Bhuddhabhushan Bhagwan Khillare shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.