Mr. Atul Raju Devkar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

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

The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order bearing Conf. OW. No./PCB/DET/385/2025 dated 29^th December, 2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 – The Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad.

The Petitioner was served with the committal order. The Petitioner was directed to be detained in Harsul Prison, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, Maharashtra.

Alongwith Detention Order, the Petitioner was served with grounds of detention. The grounds of detention consist of 14 paragraphs. It is mentioned in the first paragraph that the respondent No.1 was communicating him the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, based on which, the Detention Order was passed.

Heard learned Counsel Mr. Dwarkadas Bhange for the Petitioner and Smt. M.M.Deshmukh, learned Addl.P.P for the State.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority has observed that the normal laws were not sufficient to curb his gambling activities and therefore, it was necessary to detain him under 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, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery & Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (‘MPDA Act’ for short) to prevent him from acting in such a prejudicial manner in the future. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the grounds of detention mentions the preventive action taken against him under Section 129(a)(g) of BNSS initiated at the instance of Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune City. The Petitioner was directed to execute a final bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for two years on 19^th August, 2025. If the Petitioner’s activities were in breach of that bond, the authorities could have very-well taken action against him under Section 141 of BNSS instead of passing the Detention Order which is an extra-ordinary action to be taken in extra-ordinary circumstances.

Learned APP submitted that the Petitioner’s activities continued even after he was directed to execute a bond and therefore, it was necessary to pass the Detention Order against him.

We have considered these submissions. Before referring to the action taken under Section 129(a)(g) of the BNSS, briefly the instances on which the Detention Order was passed can be noted. Those instances are mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6. Paragraph 5.1 give details of the registered offence i.e. C.R.No. 423 of 2025 registered at Dighi Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. The offence was registered on 31^st August, 2025. The Petitioner was arrested on the same day and subsequently he was released on the same day. The allegations are that on 30^th August, 2025, at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant was found playing a game with 30 companions. It was in the nature of gambling.

The grounds of detention refers to four in-camera statements. The witness ‘A’s statement is recorded on 25^th October, 2025 in respect of the incident dated 8^th September, 2025. The witness ‘A’ had told the Petitioner to stop his gambling activities, but the Petitioner had threatened and assaulted witness A. The statement of witness ‘B’ was recorded on 28^th October, 2025 in respect of the incident that took place in the first week of September, 2025. Witness ‘B’ indulged in gambling activities with the Petitioner and his companions. He had borrowed money from the Petitioner. Witness ‘B’ lost that money. The Petitioner assaulted him with an iron rod. The Petitioner’s companion threatened him with a sickle. The statement of witness C was recorded on 2^nd November, 2025. It was in respect of the incident that had taken place in the second week of October, 2025. The Petitioner had assaulted husband of witness ‘C’ as he had not returned his money borrowed for gambling activities. The statement of witness ‘D’ is recorded on 5^th November, 2025 in respect of the incident that had taken place in the fourth week of October, 2025. This was also in respect of the incident where the Petitioner had assaulted the employer of witness ‘D’ for not returning his borrowed money which was used for gambling activities.

On the basis of these incidents, the Detention Order was passed. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the respondent No.1 had recorded his satisfaction in paragraph 8. The exact statement is as follows :

Thus, the subjective satisfaction was based on the consideration that normal laws were insufficient to curb his activities. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in submitting that the authorities had an option of exercising their powers under Section 141 of the BNSS to take an action for breach of bond executed pursuant to the action taken under Section 129(a) (g) of BNSS. The said bond is mentioned in paragraph 3.1. It is specifically mentioned as follows :

Therefore, under Section 141 of BNSS, it was quite easy for the authorities to take action. In this case, the proceedings under Section 129(a)(g) had culminated in the order under Section 136 of BNSS requiring the Petitioner to execute a bond. Breach of that bond incurred further action under Section 141(1)(b) of the BNSS which reads thus :

In the present case, the Detaining Authority has recorded that the normal laws were not sufficient to prevent him from indulging in similar activities. All the activities mentioned in the grounds of detention and in particular the registered offence dated 31^st August, 2025 were committed during subsistence of the bond executed by the Petitioner on 19^th August, 2025 for the period of two years. Therefore, the satisfaction by the respondent No.1 that normal laws were insufficient to curb these activities was not correct. The available steps under the normal law were not taken against the Petitioner. The subjective satisfaction, therefore, is vitiated. Consequently the Detention Order is not sustainable. Hence, the following order :

The petition is accordingly disposed of.