Rohit @ Monu 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 09.01.2026 bearing No. 2026/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-04, 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 20.01.2026 and confirmation order dated 02.03.2026 bearing No. MPDA-0126/CR-34/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 12 months on the ground that the petitioner is a “dangerous person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA.

The record reflects registration of nine (09) past criminal cases and one preventive action taken against the petitioner. The reference chart showing criminal record of the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder :-

. Preventive Action:-

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that although nine offences are registered against the petitioner, the detaining authority has mainly relied upon one offence, i.e. C.R. No.493/2025 registered on 08.09.2025 under Sections 109, 308(4), 189(4), 190, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS, 2023’) and Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, along with two in-camera statements of confidential witnesses 'A' and 'B', to declare the petitioner as a “Dangerous Person”.

Learned advocate submits that there is no live link between the last offence considered and the date of the detention order. It is submitted that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in all offences, including C.R. No. 493 of 2025, which was decided on merits on 01.01.2026. The bail orders have not been considered. There is no discussion in the detention order as to the insufficiency of the conditions mentioned therein. It is further submitted that no application for cancellation of bail is filed by the authorities. There is nothing on record to show violation of any bail conditions. The bail orders are not a part of the compilation and are also not on record. It is also submitted that the statements of witnesses are vague and disclose personal incidents only. The statements of confidential witnesses have not been provided to the petitioner. Learned advocate lastly submitted that the detention order is passed in a casual manner without recording proper subjective satisfaction, and prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned APP strongly supported the impugned order and submitted that due to the ascending trend in the petitioner's criminal activities and due to the fear and terror created among the residents within the jurisdiction of Bhagyanagar Police Station and adjoining areas, the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied for the need to detain the petitioner. It is submitted that the detaining authority was aware of the petitioner's bail status. However, being on bail is not a bar for issuance of a detention order. The power of preventive detention is an emergency power to be used to tackle situations of emergency, and hence, the detaining authority cannot wait until the process of cancellation of bail is completed. Since the petitioner is in the habit of committing crimes constantly and consistently, it was necessary to issue the detention order immediately. It is further submitted that the statements of confidential witnesses disclose incidents occurred at public places involving threat and violence, thereby affecting public order. The learned APP accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. N.B. Patil for the State.

The first issue that arises for our consideration is whether there exists a 'live link' between the offence considered and the time taken for passing the detention order. It is a settled principle that an order of preventive detention cannot be based on stale or remote incidents. There must be a proximate connection between the grounds and the purpose of detention. Delay in passing the order of detention vitiated the live-link.

In the present case, the offence which is relied on by the detaining authority i.e. C.R. No. 493 of 2025, was registered on 08.09.2025. The petitioner was arrested for the said crime on 09.09.2025. He was in judicial custody for almost four months, until he was released on bail on 01.01.2026. The detention order was passed on 09.01.2026, just eight days after his release. The detaining authority's reliance on the in-camera statements, which were recorded on 29.09.2025, disclose incidents committed by the petitioner one and half month prior to recording of the statement without mentioning any specific date or time. The witness has described the incident occurred in mid-August.

Also, the proposal was complete upon verification of the statements of confidential witnesses on 04.10.2025. However, the proposal came to be forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate only on 18.11.2025. The District Magistrate passed the order on 09.01.2026 after the petitioner was bailed out in C.R. No. 493/2025. The fact that the petitioner was in jail from 09.09.2025 till 01.01.2026, destroys the live link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It only shows that the detaining authorities had already made up its mind to detain the petitioner and were waiting for his release from jail so that he can further be detained.

The second issue is regarding the consideration of bail orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. reported in 2023 INSC 788, has observed as under:

Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it emerges that the petitioner was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 01.01.2026, with conditions of a general nature. The detaining authority while passing the impugned order, has merely noted the fact of the petitioner’s release on bail without adverting to the bail order or examining the sufficiency of the conditions contained therein. There is no discussion in the detention order as to why the conditions were insufficient to restrain the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. Though the circumstances relied upon by the detaining authority may constitute sufficient grounds for the State to seek cancellation of bail, they do not justify preventive detention.

The third issue is regarding the failure of the authorities to seek cancellation of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shaik Nazneen Vs. State of Telangana and others reported in (2023) 9 SCC 633, observed that if the detenu is a menace to society, the prosecution should seek cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal to the Higher Court. Seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy.

In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner violated any bail conditions. The State has not filed any application for cancellation of bail. This indicates that the remedies available under the ordinary criminal law were not resorted to by the authorities to deal with the situation, and instead, the extra ordinary power of preventive detention was invoked. Since detention involves the question of liberty of a person, it cannot be invoked casually unless compelling reasons and circumstances occur.

The fourth issue is regarding the vagueness of in-camera statements. The statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' are general and do not provide specific details about the incidents. The incidents described, even if accepted at face value, appear to be incidents affecting law and order, but not public order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ameena Begum (supra) has discussed the distinction between "law and order" and "public order" stating that the difference between the two is of degree and impact. An act may affect law and order but not public order. It is only when the act affects the community at large or the even tempo of life of the people that it becomes a public order issue. The statements of confidential witnesses in the present case do not establish that the petitioner's activities had caused impact on public order.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244, has held that preventive detention is a serious encroachment on personal liberty, and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on cogent and relevant material. The Court further observed that if the ordinary criminal law is sufficient to deal with the situation, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

In the instant case, the detaining authority has failed to record any valid reason as to why the ordinary penal provisions under the BNS, 2023 were inadequate to prevent the petitioner's alleged activities. The reliance on a case where the petitioner was in judicial custody for a long period and the non-consideration of bail conditions indicate that the authority mechanically applied its mind without examining the actual gravity and impact of the incidents. This failure shows the non-application of mind while arriving at the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. The material relied upon is insufficient to categorize the petitioner as a "Dangerous Person" within the meaning of the MPDA Act.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the detention order and the subsequent approval and confirmation orders are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

The Writ Petition stands allowed.

The detention order dated 09.01.2026 bearing No. 2026/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-04, passed by Respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Nanded, approval order dated 20.01.2026 and confirmation order dated 02.03.2026 bearing No. MPDA-0126/CR-34/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 1-State Government are hereby quashed and set aside. bearing No.

The Petitioner- Rohit @ Monu S/o Madhavrao Pundge shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.