[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Avinash Alias Lakhan Sahebrao Dhage vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:36399-DB
Crwp1444-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1444 OF 2025
Avinash @ Lakhan s/o Sahebrao Dhage
Age 30 years, Occu: Nil
R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
2. District Magistrate & Collector, ... Respondents
Nanded
Mr. Shrikrishna B. Solanke, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, Addl. PP for the Respondents-State
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.12.2025
JUDGMENT (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.)
1. Heard Mr. S. B. Solanke, the learned counsel appointed
through legal services sub-committee for the petitioner and Mr. S.P.
Sonpawale, the learned APP for the Respondent- State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the
admission stage with the consent of both sides.
Crwp1444-25
3. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner, challenges the detention Order dated 14-05-2025
bearing No.2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-19 passed by the
Respondent No. 2 as well as the approval order dated 23-05-2025 and
07.07.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 1.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that, the material which was supplied to the petitioner by the detaining
authority shows about registration 7 offences crimes against the petitioner,
but for the purpose of passing the impugned order, only one offence was
considered i.e. Crime No. 155 of 2025 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police
Station, Nanded for the offences punishable under sections 132 of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Sec. 4/25 of Arms Act. It is further canvassed that
though the petitioner is stated to be involved in 7 offences and one chapter
case, registered u/s 110 (E) (G) of Cri. P. C., for passing the detention
order, only one offence Crime No. 155 of 2025 was considered, which is
still under investigation. However, if the contents of FIR of Crime No. 155
of 2025 are considered, then it can be seen that it pertains to only law and
order as he was allegedly found while carrying dangerous weapon on the
occasion of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar birth anniversary procession and the
petitioner allegedly catch hold shirt collar of the Police person, which does
not amount to breach of public peace. So also, the petitioner already
enlarged on bail on 15.04.2025 by the competent Court, but fact of
Crwp1444-25
enlargement of the petitioner on bail has not been considered by the
detaining authority.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further
canvassed that, the detaining authority considered the Crime No. 159 of
2023 registered against the petitioner, however, contents of FIR of said
crime appears out of enmity between the petitioner and the informant
namely Rajesh Ashok Pandit. So far as Crime nos. 2/2021, 162/2021,
331/2021, 331/2023, 427/2023 and 340/2024 are concerned, some of
them were registered due to previous enmity and some disputes were
arose between two groups. In these crimes the petitioner and other
accused persons were involved and said crimes do not breach public peace
and order. Further the contents of FIR of above alleged crimes are not
sufficient to declare the petitioner as dangerous person and he is not liable
to be detained in the prison. However, the material supplied for detention
of the petitioner shows that, the proposal was submitted by Shivaji Nagar,
Nanded Police Station on 1-11-2024 and forwarded by the Sub-Divisional
Officer on 11-11-2024 through the Superintendent of Police but no further
action was taken for a considerable period. Thereafter the proposal dated
24-01-2025 was submitted on 16-04-2025 and based on order of detention
dated 15-05-2025 and detained the petitioner in civil prison, which
violated personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India as well it is in violation of provisions of MPDA Act, 1981.
Crwp1444-25
6. It is further canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that, the
Respondent No. 1 confirmed the order of detention without providing
opportunity of being heard. Therefore, impugned detention Order dated
14-05-2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 as well as the approval order
dated 23-05-2025 and 07-07-2025 passed by the Respondent no. 1 is
illegal bad in law.
7. It is further canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that, the
impugned order of detention passed on 14-05-2025 and confirmed by the
Respondent no.1 on 23-05-2025 holding that, the Advisory Board
appointed under the MPDA Act opined on 07-07-2025 about existing of
sufficient cause for continuation of detention, but no date is prescribed for
placing said proposal before the Advisory Committee. Sec. 10 of the MPDA
Act provides for placing the order of detention before the Advisory
Committee within period of three weeks from the date of detention of a
person. However, impugned order dated 23-05-2025 and 07-07-2025
shows that detention orders were not placed before the Advisory
Committee within period of 3 weeks. Therefore, impugned orders are
illegal bad in law, hence, prayed for quash and set aside.
8. Mr. Rahul Kashinath Karlile, the learned District Magistrate
filed Affidavit in reply and strongly opposed the petition demonstrating
how and under what circumstances he had arrived at the subjective
Crwp1444-25
satisfaction. Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, the learned APP appearing for the
Respondents canvassed that, the petitioner is a dangerous person as
defined under Sec. 2 (b-1) of MPDA Act and he has committed series of
serious offences under chapter XVI and XVII of IPC and u/s 4/25 of Arms
Act as well as under chapter VI and XVII of BNS, 2023. So also, due to
dangerous activities of the petitioner, the people residing within the
jurisdiction of Shivaji Nagar Police Station and adjoining areas remain
constantly under fear and terror. The illegal and dangerous activities of the
petitioner pose a serious threat to the lives of law-abiding citizens and have
resulted in a disturbance of public peace and order.
9. The learned APP further canvassed that, in past the petitioner
committed 7 offences of serious nature and one preventive chapter case
No. 13 of 2024 was registered u/s 110 (E) (G) of Cri. P. C., which led for
passing the impugned detention order, which has been approved by the
State Government as well as the Advisory Board. Though 7 various serious
crimes and one chapter case is registered against the petitioner, but
criminal activities of the petitioner have not been curtailed. Therefore, the
detaining authority taken into consideration the past criminal antecedents
of the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Therefore, impugned
order does not suffer any infirmity, illegality on part of the learned District
Crwp1444-25
Magistrate while holding the petitioner as a dangerous person, hence,
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. Having regard to rival submissions canvassed on behalf of
both the sides, we have gone through the entire record. Needless to say
that, under the impugned detention Order dated 14-05-2025, the
petitioner is declared as a "Dangerous Person", within the meaning of Sec.
2 (b-1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders Act, 1981 (in short MPDA).
Admittedly, on going through the impugned order of detention dated
14.05.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 2 and approval order dated
25.05.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 1, it is seen that, following
crimes and one chapter case is registered against the petitioner on different
dates as under:
Sr. Police C.R. Sections Date of Dare of Date of Court case
No. Station No. FIR Arrest Bail No.
1 Shivaji 06/ 394, 397, 02/01/21 02/01/21 03/04/21 SC No.
4/25 Pending
Arms Act
2 Shivaji 162/ 326, 323, 21/04/21 30/04/21 16/07/22 SC No.
Pending
3 Shivaji 159/ 323, 323, 28/05/23 09/06/23 09/06/23 RCC No.
IPC, 4/25 Pending
Arms Act
4 Shivaji 331/ 326, 323, 08/10/23 11/10/23 11/10/23 On
nagar 2023 504, 506, Investigati
34 IPC on
Crwp1444-25
5 Shivaji 427/2 307, 21/11/23 29/11/23 27/03/24 SC No.
IPC, 4/25
Arms Act
6 Shivaji 340/ 115(2), 21/08/24 ----- ----- On
nagar 2024 118(1), Investigati
352,352 on
(2),
3(5)BNS,
Arms Act.
7 Shivaji 155/ 132 BNS, 15/04/25 15/04/25 15/04/25 On
nagar 2025 4/25 Investigati
Arms Act on
8 Shivaji 13/ 110(E) 02/07/24 Chapter-Preventive Case
nagar 2024 (G) Crpc
11. On face of record it prima facie appears that, the learned
competent Court passed an order on different dates and enlarged the
petitioner on bail in all 7 above crimes. Not only this, but on 02-07-2024
the chapter case No. 13 of 2024 u/s 110 (E)(G) of Cri. P. C., has also been
closed. The record further reveals that, while passing the impugned
detention order dated 14-05-2025, the Respondent No. 2 detaining
authority considered only one Crime No. 155 of 2025 registered against
the petitioner with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Nanded for the offences
punishable under sections 132 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Sec.
4/25 of Arms Act. On perusal of proposal for approval of detention order
it reveals that, on 01-11-2024, the Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Nanded
submitted the proposal on 01-11-2024 and the Sub-Divisional Officer
forwarded said proposal on 11-11-2024 through the Superintendent of
Crwp1444-25
Police, Nanded. However, no further action was taken for considerable
period.
12. On face of record it appears that, after lapse of more than 2
months period from earlier proposal, on 16-04-2025, the Respondent
authority submitted fresh proposal dated 24-01-2025 which is a cause for
detention order dated 15-05-2025. It is pertinent to note that, on
23.05.2025 the State Government granted approval to detention of the
petitioner u/s 3 (3) of the MPDA Act and subsequently on 07-07-2025,
Respondent no. 1 confirmed the same only on the basis of Crime No.155 of
2025 registered against the petitioner. However, the respondents have not
justified as to why earlier proposal of detention of the petitioner was not
proceeded further and the Respondent detaining authority passed the
impugned detention order only on the basis of registration of Crime no.
155 of 2025 on 15-04-2025.
13. In Nenavath Bhujji-vs-State of Telangana & Ors., 2024 Mh.L.J.
Online(Cri.)(SC)=2023 SCC onLine SC 367, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated that, illegal detention order cannot be sustained, therefore, strict
compliance is required to be made, as it is a question of liberty of a citizen
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and explained the
roll of Advisory Board in paragraph Nos. 55,57 & 58 as under:
Crwp1444-25
"55. What can be discerned from a bare perusal of the above-
mentioned provisions is that the Advisory Board performs the most
vital duty of independently reviewing the detention order, after
considering all the materials placed before it, or any other material
which it deems necessary. When reviewing the detention order along
with the relevant materials, the Advisory Board must form an opinion
as to the sufficiency of the cause for warranting detention. An order of
detention passed under the Act, 1986 can only be confirmed if the
Advisory Board is of the opinion that there exists sufficient cause for
the detention of the detenu.
57. The legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit, to entrust the
Advisory Board and no one else, not even the Government, with the
performance of this crucial and critical function which ultimately
culminates into either the confirmation or revocation of a detention
order. The Advisory Board setup under any preventive detention law
in order to form its opinion is required to; (i) consider the material
placed before it; (ii) to call for further information, if deemed
necessary; (iii) to hear the detenu, if he desires to be heard and; (iv)
to submit a report in writing as to whether there is sufficient cause for
"such detention" or whether the detention is justified.
58. An Advisory Board is not a mere rubber-stamping authority for an
order of preventive detention. Whenever any order of detention is
placed before it for review, it must play an active role in ascertaining
whether the detention is justified under the law or not. Where it finds
that such order of detention is against the spirit of the Act or in
contravention of the law as laid down by the courts, it can definitely
opine that the order of detention is not sustainable and should not shy
away from expressing the same in its report."
14. In Ameena Begum-Vs- State of Telangana & Ors, (2023) 9 SCC
587, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the true distinction between a
threat to "law and order" and acts "prejudicial to public order" and it is
stated that it cannot be determined merely by the nature or quality of the
act complained of, but in the proper degree and extent of its impact on the
society. Further, it is observed that "when bail was granted by the
Crwp1444-25
jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the detaining authority ought
to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further
indulgence in identical activities; which is the very basis of the preventive
detention order. The detention order being silent on that aspect, we
interfere with the detention order only on the ground that the detaining
authority having not considered the conditions imposed by the
jurisdictional Court while granting the bail for very same offence, which
led to the preventive detention.
15. Needless to say that, sec. 2(b-1) of MPDA Act, provides
definition of "dangerous Person", who either by himself or as a member of
a gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission
of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chaper XVII of IPC
or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act. In case
in hand it prima facie appears that, the impugned order of detention is
passed on 14-05-2025 and confirmed by the Respondent no. 1 on
23.05.2025 holding that, the Advisory Board appointed under the MPDA
Act opined on 07-07-2025 about existing of sufficient cause for
continuation of detention of the petitioner. However, said proposal does
not prescribe date about placing the proposal before the Advisory
Committee.
Crwp1444-25
16. Section 10 of the MPDA Act provides that, every case where a
detention order has been made is required to placed by the State
Government before the Advisory Board within the period of three weeks
from the date of the order of detention. However, impugned orders dated
23-05-2025 and 07-07-2025 do not disclose that, the detention order
dated 14-5-2025 was placed before the Advisory Committee within period
of 3 weeks. Further, the material placed on record does not reveal that, the
Respondent No. 2 detaining authority having subjective satisfaction for
detention of the petitioner on the basis of material placed before him.
Therefore, we are of view that, there is no strict compliance of provisions
of MPDA Act, while passing the impugned order of detention dated
14-5-2025 as well as approval order dated 23-5-2025 and confirmation
order dated 07-07-2025.
17. As regards statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' are concerned,
the incident in both the cases would show that both the witnesses know
the petitioner since long but said statements are appears stereo type and
general public was not involved and no public peace and order breached.
Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of
the case as well as decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of view that
the impugned orders are not sustainable in eyes of law and liable to be
quashed and set aside.
Crwp1444-25
18. In view of above discussions, we are inclined to allow this
petition and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(1) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(2) The detention Order dated 14.05.2025 bearing No.2025/ RB-1/
Desk-2/T-4/ MPDA/CR-19 passed by the Respondent No. 2 as well
as approval order dated 23.05.2025 and confirmation order dated
07.07.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 1 are hereby quashed
and set aside.
(3) The Petitioner Avinash @ Lakhan Sahebrao Dhage shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
(4) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(5) Since, Adv. S. B. Solanke, appointed for the petitioner through legal
services sub-committee, his legal fees is payable as per Rules.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE J. )
JPChavan
