Shubhangi Bhagwan Salve vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

^1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 29.8.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, the Respondent No.2 herein. It is passed under 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 (for short, ‘the MPDA Act’). Apart from the detention order, the Respondent No.2 also issued the committal order directing that the Petitioner be detained in Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur.

^2. Heard Mr. Nikhil Kamble, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

^3. The Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention along with the detention order. In paragraph-3, the history of offences committed by the Petitioner is mentioned. All these offences are registered at Hadapsar police station, Pune under Section 65(e) and 65(d) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. These offences are as follows :

In all these offences the Petitioner was arrested and then was released on bail. Apart from these registered offences, Chapter Case No.11/2022 under Section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act was initiated against the Petitioner at the instance of Hadapsar police station and the Petitioner had executed a bond for good behaviour on 13.9.2022.

^4. However, the detention order was passed on the basis of the following material:

The Respondent No.2 in paragraphs-8 & 9 has recorded his subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was a bootlegger as defined in Section 2(b) of the MPDA Act and that she was acting in a manner dangerous to health and life of people and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

^5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the in-camera statement of witness ‘B’ shows that the incident had taken place at 8.00 p.m. on 25.6.2025. However, the Petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2025 itself and was released on bail in the evening on that very day. He submitted that it was not possible that immediately after being released on bail in the evening she would commit this offence. Therefore, the statement of witness ‘B’ is false.

^6. Learned counsel further submitted that since the Petitioner was released on bail some conditions were put on her. Those conditions were sufficient protection against her future behaviour. But instead of making an application for cancellation of bail, the detention order was passed against her. He submitted that on these two grounds, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

^7. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that it was not improbable that the Petitioner could have threatened witness ‘B’ in the evening after being released on bail on 25.6.2025. She submitted that the bail conditions were ineffective because the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give statements against the harassment caused by the Petitioner and, therefore, the normal law of land was ineffective.

^8. We have considered these submissions. As far as the registered offence i.e. C.R. No.565/2025 of Hadapsar Police station is concerned, it pertains to the raid conducted by the police on 13.6.2025. The Petitioner was found possessing four plastic bags containing alcohol at Survey No.165-A, Bhairavnath Chowk, Opposite Balaji Trading Company, Malwadi, Hadapsar Pune. She was serving liquor to a customer in a plastic bag. This raid was conducted at 6.00 p.m.. The Petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2025. She applied for bail on that day and on the same day she was granted bail. The charge -sheet was submitted on 9.7.2025. It contained chemical test report mentioning that the sample contained 9% v/v. Ethyl alcohol in water. It was not a medicinal / antiseptic / toilet preparation nor a flavouring material. The Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacy, Sassoon Hospital has submitted a report stating that consumption of ethyl alcohol is harmful to the human body and causes serious effects on various organs of the body.

^9. The witness ‘A’ stated about the incident dated 20.6.2025. Said witness came near the Petitioner’s liquor business spot. The Petitioner hit the witness and told him that she was carrying that illicit liquor business at that spot and that he should not interfere.

^10. The statement of witness ‘B’ in in respect of the incident dated 25.6.2025 which had taken place at around 8.00 p.m.. He was near the spot where the Petitioner was having her business. Some people were counting white plastic ballons (bags) of village liquor from the sack. At that time the Petitioner was present there. She threatened witness ‘B’ and drove him away. The witness did not file a complaint. He had got scared.

^11. From all these incidents it is quite clear that the Petitioner’s activities fall within the meaning of bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the MPDA Act which reads as follows :

^12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner tried to contend that the incident mentioned by witness ‘B’ was impossible. We do not agree with this submission. It cannot be said that it was improbable for the incident to have taken place merely because the Petitioner was released on bail on that very day. The in-camera statements were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hadapsar. His inquiry revealed that the incident was true. Therefore, we do not find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner in that behalf.

^13. The other contention of the Petitioner’s counsel that since the Petitioner was granted bail on certain conditions the prosecution could have moved an application for cancellation of bail. The conditions which were imposed on the Petitioner were as follows :

^14. The Petitioner’s activities showed that she continued with her activities. The prosecution could not move an application for cancellation of bail simply because the witnesses were not coming forward to give statement against her which is clear from the in-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ & ‘B’. In this view of the matter, it was not possible for the prosecution to move an application for cancellation of bail. The police authorities, as a last resort, had to initiate the proceedings for preventive detention. The detaining authority, after considering all the aspects, has passed the order of detention. We do not find any infirmity in the detention order. In the result, we do not find any merit in the Petition. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged.