[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sohel Khan Samad Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6092-DB
(1)
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1413 OF 2025
Sohel Khan Samad Khan,
Age : 27 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Old Bhaji Mandi, Bundelpura,
Beed. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. District Collector, Beed
Office of District Collector, Beed.
3. Superintendent of Police, Beed
Office of the Police Superintendent Beed.
4. Police Inspector,
Police Station, Beed City,
Beed. ..Respondents
.....
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. N. B. Patil
.....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 05, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: FEBRUARY 11, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) :
-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for
respondent/State.
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the rival parties.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated
26.07.2025, passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval of the
said order of detention on 06.08.2025 under Section 3(3) of the
MPDA Act and the confirmation order dated 12.09.2025 passed by
respondent No.1, by invoking the power of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
following offences are registered against the petitioner and one
preventive action is also taken against the petitioner.
Sr. Police Station C.R. No. & Under Section Date of Present status
Registratio
n
1. Peth Beed 177/2018, U/s 457,380 01.06.2018 Pending in Court
IPC
2. Beed City 18/2019, U/s 457, 380 IPC 23.01.2019 Pending in Court
3. Beed City 63/2020 U/s 307, 324, 16.03.2025 Pending in Court
504, 506(2) IPC
4. Beed City 116/2024, U/s 326,324, 29.05.2024 Pending in Court
323, 504, 506, 34 IPC
5. Beed City 133/2024 U/s 394, 323, 24.06.2024 Pending in Court
504, 506 read with 34 IPC
6. Beed City 50/2025 U/s 118(2), 31.03.2024 On Investigation
115(2), 3(5) B.N.S. 2023
7. Beed City 86/2025 U/s 126(2), 352, 25.05.2025 On Investigation
351(2) BNS
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
Preventive Action
Sr. Police Station Chapter Case No. & U/s. Date of Disposal
No. Registration
1 City 21/2024 u/s 129 of 30.09.2024 Final Bond.
BNSS
However, the detaining authority has considered mainly two
offences namely C.R.No.50 of 2025 under Sections 118 (2), 115(2),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "B.N.S.")
registered with Beed City Police Station on 31.03.2025 and C.R.No.86
of 2025 registered with Beed City Police Station, under Sections
126(2), 352, & 351(2) of the B.N.S. dated 25.05.2025 to declare the
petitioner as a "Dangerous Person". However, it is to be noted that for
first five offences, there is absolutely no live link present, since those
offences appeared to be committed during the period from 2018 to
2024. According to him, the petitioner had not even arrested in last
two crimes, which are considered for passing this order. According to
him, failure to arrest the accused in those offences suggest that the
ordinary law of land is sufficient to deal with the situation and there
was no breach of public order. According to him, the detaining
authority did not find it necessary to cancel the previous bond of
preventive action, before passing the order. Further, though the
C.R.No.50 of 2025 was filed against petitioner and two others, but
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
only petitioner has been detained and no action was taken against
other two accused. He submitted that the statements of secrete
witnesses are stereotype in nature and they are in respect of individual
persons, for which, at the most question of law and order may arise.
He also pointed out that, in the detention order, no specific duration
was mentioned, and considering the nature of criminal act of the
present petitioner against the individual, it cannot be said that public
order is disturbed. Thus, he submitted that, the detaining authority,
without subjective satisfaction, has passed the impugned order, which
needs to be set-aside along with the consequential approval order and
as well as confirmation order. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
in addition to submissions, also placed reliance on the following
judgments :-
(i) Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra
[{2024 SCC OnLine SC 3718)]
(ii) Mohammad Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra
(Cri. W.P. 1581/2024 Bom HC, Para 9)
(iii) Nenavath Bujji etc Vs. State of Telangana and others
[( 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367)]
(iv) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs.
State of Tripura and others (2022 LiveLaw (SC)813
(v) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. The State
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
of Telangana and others [(2023 LiveLaw (SC)743)]
(vi) Rajendrasing Vs. State of Maharashtra
[(2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3089 )]
(vii) High Court Nagpur Bench in Sheikh Shahrukh Sheikh Mehboob
Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 571 of 2024
dated 06.03.2025.
5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner by filing affidavit-in-reply of
respondent No.2. According to him, considering the criminal activities
of the petitioner, he fulfills the criteria of being defined as
"Dangerous Person" as per Section 2(b-1) of the Maharashtra
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-
Offenders/Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers And
Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act,
1981 (hereinafter referred to as " M.P.D.A." Act) . He pointed out that,
due to dangerous activities of the petitioner, the persons residing
within the jurisdiction of City Police Station, Beed and adjoining areas
remain under constant fear and terror, and therefore, the petitioner
has become threat to the public order. He pointed out that, the
detaining authority is convinced and subjectively satisfied that the
petitioner is a "Dangerous Person" as defined in M.P.D.A. Act, 1981
and thus pass the impugned order, which needs to be upheld.
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
6. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nenvath Bujji
(supra) has reiterated that illegal detention order cannot be sustained
for want of, strict compliance of the provisions, since it relates to the
question of liberty of citizen. Further, it is clearly apparent from the
material on record that there was no live link between first five
offences, registered against the petitioner, during the period from
2018 to 2024. Further, it appears that on 04.01.2024, the petitioner is
already acquitted from Crime No.63 of 2020 for the offences
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned
Sessions Judge, Beed. However, though the aforesaid crime was part
of detention order, but the detaining authority did not consider the
acquittal of the petitioner from the said crime.
7. It is not in dispute that under the preventive action a final bond
for good behaviour was taken from the petitioner on 30.09.2024, but
the authorities failed to cancel this bond before invoking the
provisions of M.P.D.A Act, 1981 against the petitioner. The learned
counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Rajendersing Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra),
wherein it is observed that failure to cancel an existing bond, before
passing a detention order, certainly raises questions regarding the
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
necessity of detention, which the District Magistrate has to answer.
No such cancellation, of the aforesaid bond, is done in the instant
case.
8. It is specifically held in the case of Joyi Kitty Joseph Vs. Union
of India (supra) that preventive detention cannot be used to by-pass
the judicial bail process. Even in the judgment of Ameen Begum Vs.
State of Telangana (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the
distinction between threat to law and order and acts prejudicial to
public order. On this background, if the nature of act committed by
the petitioner is examined, then it appears that it had not created
deterrence to the public order. On the contrary, it appears that the
criminal acts alleged to be committed by the petitioner, are against the
individuals, such as voluntarily causing hurt and causing insult.
Moreover, it is to be noted that the petitioner had not even arrested in
the crimes, which are considered for passing the detention order.
Under such circumstances, it can be inferred that the respondents
have ignored the aspect of non-arrest, while passing the impugned
order of detention. Feeling the arrest of petitioner being not
necessary, clearly indicates that the ordinary law of the land is
sufficient to deal with criminal act of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex
Court, time and again has observed this, in the cases of Arjun
Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, Amenabegum Vs. State of
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
Telangana, and Rajendersing Vs. State of Maharashtra.
09. It is also important to note that, in crime No.50 of 2025 other
two persons are also involved along with the present petitioner, for
causing voluntary hurt. However, no action appears to be taken
against the other two accused in the aforesaid crime, and therefore,
detaining authority or the sponsoring authority cannot adopt pick and
choose method, there has to be explanation in the impugned order as
to why the action is taken only against the petitioner by ignoring other
two. No such reason is given in the impugned order, and therefore,
the same can be termed as an order passed without application of
mind.
10. So far as in-camera statements of secret witnesses are
concerned, those are stereotype in nature and even taken as true, the
question of law and order would at least arise, but not in respect of
breach of public order, since the acts mentioned in those statements
are against the individuals. Therefore, considering all these aspects, in
the light of observations and decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, what is
revealed that the criminal acts of the petitioner have created law and
order situation, but not disturbance to the public order. Even though
the Advisory Board has confirmed the detention order, but still we are
of the opinion that there was no concrete material before the
Cri. W. P. 1413-2025 II.odt
detaining authority to hold that the petitioner is a dangerous person.
Under such circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 26.07.2025, passed by respondent
No.2 under Section 3(3) of the M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 as well as the
approval order of the State Government dated 06.08.2025 and
the confirmation order dated 12.09.2025 passed by respondent
No.1, are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Petitioner- Sohel Khan Samad Khan shall be released forthwith,
if no required in any other offence.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
