Pallu Kamlesh Chaudhari vs Commissioner Of Police, Pune & Ors.

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

The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order dated 26/08/2025 passed by the Respondent No.1, Commissioner of Police, Pune. On the same day, the Respondent No.1 passed a committal order directing the Petitioner to be detained in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur, as a preventive measure, under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, 'Dangerous Person's, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short ‘MPDA Act’).

Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State.

The Petitioner was served with the Detention Order, the Committal Order and the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention consist of various paragraphs.

Paragraph No.2 of the grounds of detention mentions that the Petitioner was a weapon-wielding, dangerous recidivist of violent nature indulging in criminal activities that foster terror in society. He and his accomplices moved, armed with deadly weapons such as iron koyta, iron knife, and did not hesitate to use the same while committing offences such as voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, MCOCA, robbery hurt, possessing illegal arms, etc. It is further mentioned that the Petitioner had been habitually committing offences under IPC, BNS Act and Arms Act, and that he was thus a 'Dangerous Person' as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, and that his criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Having mentioned so in Paragraph No.2, Paragraph No.3 continues to mention the past offences registered against him. All these offences were registered at Warje Malwadi Police Station between the year 2021 and 2023. There were two NCs registered at the same police station in the year 2024.

Paragraph 3.2 refers to four preventive actions taken in the past. Two of them were under section 110(a), (e), and (g) of the Cr.P.C. One was under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, and one was under Section 129(e),(g) of BNSS. All these actions were initiated by Warje Malwadi Police Station.

The grounds further mention that the Detaining Authority had relied on C.R. No.103/2025 registered at Warje Malwadi Police Station under Section 309(4), 118(1), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS, under Section 4 r/w 25 of the Arms Act, and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It was registered on 06/03/2025. The Petitioner was arrested on 16/07/2025 and was granted bail by the competent Court on 21/07/2025. The incident took place on 05/03/2025. The allegations are that the Petitioner and his associates threatened the complainant and others and demanded money. The Petitioner was having a sharp weapon with him.

Apart from this registered offence, there are two statements of witnesses recorded 'In-Camera'. Witness 'A' has stated about the incident dated 26/07/2025, and Witness 'B' has stated about the incident dated 31/07/2025. Both these instances were in the nature of extortion. Paragraph No.7 mentions that, from these facts, the Respondent No.1 was satisfied that the Petitioner was a 'Dangerous Person' as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the said Act. These activities are mentioned in Paragraphs 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2, and that his criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, in Paragraph No.8, the Detaining Authority had clearly referred to the material only in Paragraphs 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2, i.e. C.R. No.103 of 2025 and the two ‘In-Camera’ statements. This would indicate that no other material was taken into consideration by him. However, Paragraph No.2 runs contrary to this observation. The said Paragraph No.2 refers to his past criminal activities and further records that the Petitioner had been habitually committing the offences under IPC, BNS Act and Arms Act, and ‘thus’, he was a 'Dangerous Person' as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the said Act, and that his criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order (emphasis supplied). This paragraph is followed by the past registered offences and the preventive actions referred to therein. She, therefore, submitted that the contrary stand taken by the Detaining Authority in different paragraphs had created confusion and had affected the Petitioner's right to make an effective representation.

She further submitted that the Detaining Authority, i.e. the Respondent No.1, had not referred to the material and the nature of incidents as far as the offences registered in the year 2021 and 2023 are concerned. No further details are given regarding the preventive actions with reference to the specific incidents.

The learned APP submitted that Paragraph No.8 of the grounds of detention is specific, and that the Respondent No.1 has relied only on Paragraphs 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2, and not on the antecedents in reaching his subjective satisfaction.

We have considered these submissions. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Paragraph No.2 of the grounds of detention is very specific. It refers to his past criminal activities and then records the subjective satisfaction of the Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner was a 'Dangerous Person' and that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This satisfaction is reached on the basis of his antecedents, and there is no reference to C.R. No.103 of 2025 and the ‘In-Camera’ statements, which he refers to in Paragraph No.8. Thus, the Respondent No.1 has mentioned contrary statement in Paragraph Nos.2 and 8.

Thus, it has created confusion, thereby affecting the Petitioner's right to make earliest effective representation against the Detention Order. Moreover, the grounds of detention do not give details about the past registered offences in the year 2021 and 2023. Therefore, the Petitioner could not meet the averments regarding his past activities and past incidents. On both these grounds, the right to make an effective representation is affected, and thus the impugned Detention Order is required to be set aside.

Hence, the following order :