Vikas Sahebrao @ Baban Gore vs The District Magistrate & Ors.

J U D G M E N T : ^{[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 20.12.2025 bearing No. 2025/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-24, passed by Respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Beed, 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 “M.P.D.A. Act”) and the confirmation order dated 11.02.2026 bearing No. MPDA-1225/CR-726/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 1-State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 12(1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. 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 M.P.D.A. Act.

The record reflects registration of five (05) past criminal cases and one preventive action taken against the petitioner. The reference chart showing criminal record of the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder :

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that although five offences are registered against the petitioner, the detaining authority has mainly relied upon two offences, i.e. C.R. No.257/2025 registered on 03.10.2025 under Sections 74, 75, 118(1), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS") and N.C. No.552/2025 registered on 07.11.2025 under Sections 352, 351(2) of BNS, both registered with Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station, along with two in-camera statements of confidential witnesses 'A' and 'B', to declare the petitioner as a “Dangerous Person”.

It is submitted that the petitioner was not arrested in C.R. No.257/2025 and was merely served with a notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"). Furthermore, the offence registered as N.C. No.552/2025 is non-cognizable in nature, where arrest is not permissible. Despite this, the Detaining Authority has proceeded to pass the detention order on the basis of these very offences. Additionally, though the petitioner was released on bail in the earlier offences, the bail orders were not placed on record and the said bail position was not taken into consideration. It is further submitted that the in-camera statements of witnesses are stereotyped and vague. The said statements do not reflect any incident affecting the public order and merely indicate individual law and order issues. Learned advocate submitted that the detention order is passed without proper application of mind, without recording the requisite subjective satisfaction, and lastly prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned A.P.P. strongly supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the same. It is submitted that both the offences relied on by the detaining authority and the incidents narrated by secret witnesses, involve clear threats and acts of violence, committed in public places, clearly indicating a breach of public order. The criminal activities of the petitioner have created fear in the minds of the general public, which is clear from the fact that no individual was willing to give statements against the petitioner. Furthermore, the detaining authority was aware of the bail position, as expressly recorded in paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention. It is further submitted that in any event, the mere fact of being on bail does not operate as a bar for issuance of detention order. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed after going through the entire record, recording the requisite subjective satisfaction and complying with the mandatory procedural requirements. The learned A.P.P. accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In support of his submissions, learned A.P.P. placed reliance on the judgments in The Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Smt. C. Anita reported in (2004) 7 SCC 467; State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta @ Pappu and Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 591; and Mr. Suraj @ Nagesh Shivaji Mahanoor Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.; Writ Petition No. 4762 of 2025, decided on 20.07.2026, to submit that the petitioner’s activities fall within the ambit of "public order" and that the detention is valid.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. D. S. Patil for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar for the State.

Upon perusal of the material on record, we find that the Detaining Authority relied upon C.R. No.257/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, 118(1), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, wherein the petitioner was not arrested and was only served with a notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS. The second offence relied upon is a non-cognizable offence under Sections 352 and 351(2) of the BNS. The description of the offences in the grounds of detention indicates that the incidents are of an individual nature and do not reflect the use of life threatening weapons or any act that would affect the community at large. Also, the fact that the petitioner was not arrested in the crime considered for detention indicates that, even under ordinary criminal law, the offence committed was not of such nature which required his detention by way of arrest.

So far as the in-camera statements are concerned, both statements appear stereotyped in nature. The incidents described in the statements are isolated, involving specific individuals only. The incidents do not have the potential to cause a disturbance of public peace or tranquility and thus, cannot be construed as affecting the public order.

The distinction between "law and order" and "public order" is well established. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and also discussed in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. reported in 2023 INSC 788, breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder. the Supreme Court held that for an act to disturb 'public order', it must have an impact on the broader community; it is not a disturbance to public order if it merely affects an individual, leaving the even tempo of the society undisturbed.

In the present case, the material on record does not indicate that the petitioner's activities have caused disturbance to the public order. The fear expressed by the secret witnesses appears to be more of a law and order nature, which can be effectively dealt with by ordinary criminal law.

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 were inadequate to prevent the petitioner's alleged activities. The detention order is based on a crime bearing C.R. No. 257 of 2025, where the petitioner was not even arrested and, the second crime considered is a non-cognizable offence. This indicates that the authority mechanically applied its mind without examining the actual gravity and impact of the incidents. This failure vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

The judgments relied on by learned A.P.P., though authoritative on the distinction between "law and order" and "public order", are factually distinguishable. In C. Anita (supra), the detention was upheld because the detenu had nearly thirty cases registered against him and the grounds clearly indicated how his activities created a sense of terror affecting public tranquility. Similarly, in Sanjai Pratap Gupta (supra), the detenu was involved in a fatal firing incident, and the Court found sufficient material to sustain the detention. In the present case, the incidents, as they appear from the record, are confined to few individuals and do not disclose any effect on the general public or even disturb the tempo of life. Thus, the judgments relied on being factually distinguishable, are of no help to the respondents in the present case.

In the present case, the material relied upon is insufficient to categorize the petitioner as a "Dangerous Person" within the meaning of the M.P.D.A. Act.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order is passed :-

The Writ Petition stands allowed.

The detention order dated 20.12.2025 bearing No. 2025/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-24, passed by Respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Beed and confirmation order dated 11.02.2026 bearing No. MPDA-1225/CR-726/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 1-State Government are hereby quashed and set aside.

The Petitioner- Vikas Sahebrao @ Baban Gore shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.