Uday Shaymkumar Thapa vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

JUDGMENT : (Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)

The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order dated 4^th November 2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 – Commissioner of Police, Brihanmumbai, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (for short, “MPDA Act”).

Heard, Mr. Shirgire, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

Respondent No. 2 had passed a separate Committal Order dated 4^th November 2025, along with the Detention Order on the same date, directing the Petitioner to be detained at Nashik Central Prison.

The Petitioner was served with the grounds of the Detention dated 4^th November 2025. In Paragraph 2, it is specifically mentioned that the Respondent No. 2 had communicated to the Petitioner the grounds mentioned in Paragraph 8, on the basis of which the Detention Order was passed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. Thus, the Respondent No. 2 had specifically restricted his subjective satisfaction to the material mentioned in Paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention.

Before referring to Paragraph 8, the Respondent No. 2 has given the past history of the Petitioner in the form of six registered offences at Sakinaka Police Station during the years 2020–2025, with reference to the externment order passed in the year 2021. Thus, the grounds of detention referred to by the Respondent No. 2 commence from Paragraph 8. Those grounds refer to C.R. No. 825 of 2025 registered at Sakinaka Police Station under Sections 309(6), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

The incident is dated 24^th August 2025. The complainant was present in his brother-in-law’s Milk Center. The Petitioner come to the shop at about 6.30 a.m., and demanded money. When the complainant refused, the Petitioner slapped and threatened him. He took out a sharp knife and put it on the complainant’s neck. The Petitioner assaulted him with fists and kick blows. The people trying to help the complainant were also threatened. On that basis the FIR is lodged. The Petitioner was arrested on 24^th August 2025. He was granted bail on 26^th August 2025.

Apart from the registered offence, there are statements of two witnesses recorded in camera. The in-camera statement of witness ‘A’ was recorded on 17^th September 2025. The statement refers to the incident that took place in the first week of September 2025. The allegations are in the nature of extortion. The Petitioner allegedly showed a chopper, demanded money, and threatened people in the area. The Petitioner allegedly forcibly took Rs. 1,250/- from these witnesses.

Witness ‘B’ gave his in-camera statement on 19^th September 2025 in respect of an incident that allegedly took place in the second week of September 2025. On that date, at about 7:45 p.m., the Petitioner allegedly stopped the witness and demanded money. When the witness refused, the Petitioner allegedly took Rs. 7,200/- from Witness B’s pant pocket and threatened the people present.

Based on this particular material, the Respondent No.2 in Paragraph No.9 recorded his subjective satisfaction that he was satisfied that the Petitioner was a “dangerous person” as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, 1981. He further recorded that the activities of the Petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Based on the said subjective satisfaction, the Detention Order was passed.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was detained in September 2025. More than 10 months have passed and there is no further necessity for his detention. He has lost his father in September 2025.

Learned counsel further submitted that the in-camera statements were recorded on 17^th September 2025 and 19^th September 2025 in respect of incidents that had taken place prior to the recording of their statements. The registered offence was in respect of the incident dated 24^th August 2025. The Detention Order was passed on 4^th November 2025; hence, there was a delay in passing the order, and there was no necessity to pass the Detention Order. He submitted that, on this ground, the Detention Order should be set aside.

We are referring to grounds (j) and (m) taken by him in the Petition, which are as follows.

It is mentioned that the activities alleged do not show any public order problem. The ground further mentions that the alleged incident had taken place on 21^st July 2025, whereas the Detention Order was passed on 4^th November 2025. Thus, there was a delay in passing the order.

Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention, which are based on the aforementioned registered offence, are sufficient grounds to pass the Detention Order against the Petitioner. She submitted that the subjective satisfaction was properly recorded and arrived at by the Respondent No. 2. She referred to the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the Respondent No. 2. In the said Affidavit, Respondent No. 2 had stated that the ground raised by the Petitioner that the incident was dated 21^st July 2025 is not correct, as it relates to CR No. 719 of 2025 and not to CR No.825 of 2025 registered at Sakinaka Police Station. The Detention Order is based on CR No.825 of 2025 in respect of the incident dated 24^th August 2025.

We have considered these submissions. The Respondent No. 2 has taken into consideration one registered offence and two in-camera statements, which we have referred to hereinabove. All the instances clearly show that, because of the acts of the Petitioner, public order was prejudicially affected. The Petitioner was found to be a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act.

Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act defines dangerous person which reads thus:-

Section 2(a)(iv)reads thus:

Both these conditions are satisfied in the present case, and the subjective satisfaction is properly recorded. The past history is merely referred to by way of preamble, and no subjective satisfaction is arrived at, based on that past history. There is no substance in the submission that there was a delay in passing the Detention Order. The registered offence was in respect of the incident dated 24^th August 2025. The in-camera statements were recorded on 17^th September 2025 and 19th September 2025, in respect of incidents that had taken place in the first and second week of September 2025. There was a continuous link between all these incidents. Thereafter, the proposal was prepared and, after due application of mind, the Detention Order was passed. On 19^th September 2025, the Police came to know about the incident involving witness ‘B’. After that the steps were taken. It takes reasonable time to collect material, to prepare the proposal, and to verify in-camera statements. The Detaining Authority needs sufficient time to apply his mind.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any unexplained delay in this case. We also do not find any infirmity in the Detention Order dated 4^th November 2025. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the Petition.

The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Rule is discharged.