[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rutik Alias Nikki Amariksing Panjabi vs The District Magistrate, Dhule And ... on 12 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6250-DB
(1)
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1285 OF 2025
Rutik @ Nikki Amariksing Panjabi,
Age : 25 Years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Kolawade nagar, Tq. Dhule,
District Dhule. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. District Magistrate, Dhule
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra, Home
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. The Jail Superintendent,
Central Prison, Nashik. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande
A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State : Mr. M.A. Aher
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 09, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: FEBRUARY 12, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P.
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention
dated 24.06.2025 bearing No. DANDAPRA/KAVI/MPDA/03/
2025 passed by respondent No.1/The District Magistrate,
Dhule in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video
Priates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black
Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter
referred to as "MPDA Act") as well as the approval order of the
State Government dated 03.07.2025 and the confirmation order
dated 05.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3, by invoking the
power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
following offences are registered against the petitioner and two
preventive actions are also taken against the petitioner.
Sr. Police Station C.R. No. & Under Section Date of Present status
No. Registration
1. Deopur 131/2019 u/s 392, 34 of 28.11.2019 Pending trial
IPC
2. Mohadinagar 111/2020 u/s 457, 380, 34 01.12.2020 Pending trial
of IPC
3. Deopur 06/2022 u/s 392 of IPC 07.01.2020 Pending trial
4. Azadnagar 08/2022 u/s 392, 34 of 10.01.2022 Pending trial
IPC
5. Mohadinagar 08/2022 u/s 392 of IPC 12.01.2022 Pending trial
6. Mohadinagar 130/2022 u/s 379 of IPC 16.05.2022 Pending trial
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
7. Dhule City 683/2022 u/s 457, 380 of 22.11.2022 Pending trial
IPC
8. Dhule City 426/2023 u/s 379, 34 of 01.11.2023 Pending trial
IPC
9. Dhule City 296/2024 u/s 379, 411, 25.06.2024 Pending trial
414, 34 of IPC
10. Mohadinagar 04/2025 u/s 309(4), 09.01.2025 Pending trial
309(6), 311, 126(2), 3(5)
of BNS, 2023
Non-cognizable cases
Sr.. Police Station N.C.R. No. & Under Date of Present status
No. Section Registration
01. Dhule City 649/2024 u/s 352, 29.12.2024 Intimation was
351(2)(3) of BNS given to the
complainant to
approach the
concerned
Court
Preventive Action
Sr. Police Station Chapter Case Date of Disposal
No. No. Registration
01. Mohadinagar 01/2021 u/s 05.01.2021 Period is over
110 of Cr.P.C.
02. Dhule City 02/2024 u/s 05/02/2024 Closed
110(e)(g) of
Cr. P.C
However, the detaining authority has considered mainly
only one offence i.e. C.R. No. 4 of 2025 under Sections 309 (4),
309(6), 311. 126(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(for short, "B.N.S.") registered with Mohadinagar Police Station
on 09.01.2025 to declare the petitioner as a "Dangerous
Person". According to him, there is no live link in the
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
impugned order of detention and the earlier nine crimes
registered during the period from 2019 to 2024 against the
petitioner. According to him, the petitioner has also been
released on bail in the said crime on 14.05.2025, but nothing
is mentioned in the detention order about he being released on
bail. Thus, there is no application of mind in passing the
impugned order. He further submitted that, there is delay in
passing the detention order of about six months and the
nature of criminal act as alleged is not against public order,
but it is individual in nature. Further, according to him, the
statements of secret witnesses are stereotype in nature and the
same can give rise to disturbance of law and order and not
deterrence to the public order. Thus, he prayed for setting-
aside the impugned order of detention. The learned counsel for
the petitioner, in addition to submissions, also placed reliance
on the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Ibbu Kashim @ Kasim Nuriwale Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition No.319
of 2025 dated 24.11.2025
4. 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.1. According to him, the petitioner is
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
definitely a "Dangerous Person" within the meaning of Section
2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. He pointed out that the letter issued
to the detinue contents reasons for his detentions and due to
his fear, the public at large is facing difficulty. According to
him, the incidents in respect of secret witnesses had in fact
taken place in public place, which is definitely indicative of
breach of public order. He submitted that the impugned order
has been passed after subjective satisfaction and accordingly
approval is also there. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the
petition. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in addition
to submissions, also placed reliance on the following
judgments:-
(i) Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R.H.
Mendonca and others [ (2000) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 751]
(ii) Iqbal Munnaf Sayyed vs Comissioner of Police, Pune
and others [2017 (3) ABR (Cri) 923]
5. Admittedly, only one offence of Mohadinagar Police
Station has been considered for passing the detention order of
the petitioner, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner along
with other accused threatened the informant and took away
cash amount of Rs. 13,50,200/- from him by using deadly
weapon. However, there were also other accused involved in
this crime, but nothing is there on record to show that any
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
similar action as that of the present petitioner, had been taken
against that another accused. Such pick and choose method
is not permissible. Moreover, the alleged criminal act appears
to be of individual nature and for that purpose crime is already
registered. It is significant to note that the petitioner has
already been released on bail on 14.05.2025 by the concerned
Court under certain conditions. However, the detaining
authority did not bother to go through the conditions of bail
and did not take any effort for filing the application for
cancellation of bail.
6. In the case of Joyi kitty Josef Vs. Union of India &
Others reported in 2025 AIR (SC) 1702 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has already held that, when a bail is granted with
conditions to the detainee, then the detaining authority must
apply its mind to those conditions and record its subjective
satisfaction as to why they are insufficient to prevent
prejudicial activities. No such application of mind or
subjective satisfaction is apparent from the impugned order.
Failure to consider the bail conditions definitely indicates that
the same were sufficient dealt with the criminal act of the
petitioner.
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
7. Further, it is evident that though there were ten crimes
mentioned in the detention order, but the first nine crimes
were in fact committed during the period from 2019 to 2024,
wherein the petitioner is already on bail. Thus, considering
the period of aforesaid crimes, there is absolutely no proximate
connection between those crimes and the detention order. As
such, live link is also missing in this case.
8. So far as statements of secret witnesses are concerned, it
is in respect of snatching of certain amount from those
witnesses by the petitioner. However, those incidents had
taken long back i.e. on 1.1.2025 and 25.12.2024. Moreover,
the same were of individualistic in nature, for which, at the
most, law and order situation may arise. It cannot be said that
those incidents are sufficient to hold that due to criminal
activities of the petitioner, there is breach of public order. In
the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar, (AIR
1966 SC 740) the Hon'ble Apex Court has differentiated
breach of law and order and breach of public order. Breach of
public order involves disturbance affecting the even tempo of
life of community, whereas law and order involves individual
crimes, not disrupting the broader public tranquility. In the
instant matter, it appears that the criminal activities of the
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
petitioner are against individuals, but not in deterrence to the
public order. Therefore, for that reason also, the detention
order appears to be without application of mind.
9. Though the learned A.P.P. relied on the judgments
(supra), but much water has flown thereafter and considering
the fact that the preventive detention is not to punish for the
past acts, but to prevent further conduct, it must be supported
by cogent, proximate and relevant material and when such
material is absent, the very foundation of the order falls. In
the instant case, as discussed above, there is no sufficient
material on record to categorize the petitioner as "Dangerous
Person" within the meaning of provisions of the M.P.D.A Act,
1981, and therefore, even though the Advisory Board has
confirmed the order, but in the light of the aforesaid
discussion, we do not find impugned order and its
confirmation, as sustainable. In the result, we pass the
following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 24.06.2025, bearing
No.DANDAPRA/KAVI/MPDA/03/2025 passed
by respondent No.1 The District Magistrate
Dhule, under Section 3(2) of the M.P.D.A. Act,
Cri. W. P. 1285-2025.odt
1981 as well as the approval order of the State
Government dated 03.07.2025 and the
confirmation order dated 05.08.2025 passed by
respondent No.2, are hereby quashed and set
aside.
(iii) Petitioner- Rutik @ Nikki Amariksing Panjabi
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/
