Santosh Raghunath Dhotre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1658 Bom

Bombay High Court

Santosh Raghunath Dhotre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 13 February, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:6552-DB
                                                  (1)
                                                              902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1259 OF 2025


                       Santosh Raghunath Dhotre,
                       Age : 27 Years, Occ. Labour,
                       R/o. Dawal Malik Chowk Nagpur,
                       Dist. Ahilyanagar                        ..PETITIONER

                                  VERSUS

                1.     The State of Maharashtra
                       Through : Section Oficer,
                       Home Department (Special)
                       2nd Floor, Mantralay, Mumbai-32

                2.     The District Magistrate,
                       Office of District Magistrate,
                       Ahilyanagar, Tq. Ahilyanagar,
                       District : Ahilyanagar

                3.     The Superintendent,
                       Central Prison, Harsool,
                       Aurangabad                         ..RESPONDENTS

                                                 ...
                       Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane
                       A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State : M. A. Aher
                                                 ...

                                  CORAM :     SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                                  RESERVED ON :         JANUARY 13, 2026
                                  PRONOUNCED ON: FEBRUARY 13, 2026



                JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) :

-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at

the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the

respondents-State.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention

dated 22/07/2025 bearing No. D.C./Karya.9 C.1/774/2025

passed by respondent No.2- The District Magistrate,

Ahilyanagar 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 01/08/2025 and the confirmation

order dated 11/09/2025 passed by respondent No.1, 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 four

preventive actions are also taken against the petitioner. Page

Sr. Police Crime register No. Reg. Date Current No. Station and section position

01. MIDC 613/2019 u/s 01.11.2019 Court 395,201, 412 of IPC Pending R.C.C. No.

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

02. MIDC I 697/2020 U/s 06.09.2020 Court 326,324,323,504, Pending 506 read with R.C.C. Section 34 of IPC No.

03. Topkhana I 7613/2020 u/s 16/11/2020 Court 392, 34 of IPC Pending R.C.C.

04. Topkhana I 7616/2020 u/s 17.11.2020 Court 393, 34 of IPC Pending R.C.C. No.

05. MIDC I 258/2021 u/s 27.04.2021 Court 307, 341, 143, 148, Pending 149, 323, 504, 506 R.C.C. of IPC r/w 37(1)(3), No.

Police Act

06. MIDC I 178/2022 u/s 18.03.2022 Court 307, 143, 147,148, pending 149, 504, 506, Special 120(B) of the IPC case

Bombay Police Act and 3(1)(ii)& 3(2), 3(4) MCOC Act

07. MIDC I 206/2022 u/s 30.03.2022 Court 394, 387, 450, 386 Pending r/w 34 of IPC RCC

08. Topkhana I 1623/2023 u/s 14.11.2023 Court 307, 324, 323 143, Pending 147, 148, 149, 504, Session 506, 427, 201 of Case No.

09. M.I.D.C. I 1160/2023 u/s 16.12.2023 Court 307, 504, 506 r/w Pending

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

34 along with 3/25, RCC

Arms Act

10. MIDC I 800/2024 u/s 06.11.2024 Investigati 162, 166, 167, 168, on in 118(1),115, 352, progress 351(2) of B.N.S. Act (The 2023 MPDA proposal is based on a specific offence)

11. MIDC I 864/2024 u/s 21.11.2024 Investigati 118(1), 119(1), 352, on in 351(2), 324(4) of progress B.N.S. Act 2023 ( The MPDA proposal is based on a specific offene)

12. MIDC I 137/2025 u/s 109, 02.03.2025 Investigati 118(1),115(2), 352, on in 351(2), 119(1), progress 326(g), 189(2), ( The 191(2),191(3), 190, MPDA 324(4) of IPC along proposal with Arms Act 4/25 is based Maharashtra Police on a Act 37(1)(3) 135 and specific Section 7 of the offence) Criminal Law Amendment Act

Preventive action

Sr. Police Preventive Section Current Station Action position

1. MIDC 440/2019 C.R.P.C. 107 Date The final 23.09.2019 bond has expired

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

2. MIDC 03/2020 C.R.P.C. 110 (a)(g) The final Dt. 07.02.2020 bond has expired

3. MIDC 32/2022 C.R.P.C. 110(a)(g) The said Dt. 24.08.2022 proposal was rejected

4. MIDC 02/2020 56(1)(a)(b) of Sub Bombay Police Act Divisional Magistrate Ahilyanagar rejected this proposal

However, the detaining authority has considered mainly

last three offences i.e. i) I-800/2024 u/s 162, 166, 167, 168,

118(1),115, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. Act 2023, ii) I-864/2024 u/s

118(1), 119(1), 352, 351(2), 324(4) of B.N.S. Act 2023 and iii)

I-137/2025 u/s 109, 118(1),115(2), 352, 351(2), 119(1),

326(g), 189(2), 191(2),191(3), 190, 324(4) of IPC along with

Arms Act 4/25 Maharashtra Police Act 37(1)(3) 135 and

Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, all registered

with MIDC Police Station on 06/11/2024, 21/11/2024 and

02/03/2025 respectively to declare the petitioner as a

"Dangerous Person". According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, there is no live link between the impugned order of

detention and the earlier nine crimes registered during the

period from 2019 to 2024 against the petitioner. According to

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

her, the petitioner has also been released on bail in at least

two crimes, but no consideration for the said fact finds place in

the impugned order. Thus, there is no application of mind in

passing the impugned order. She further submitted that,

there is delay in passing the detention order since the last

crime appears to be of 02/03/2025. Even the proposal was

sent after three months of the last crime. She pointed out that

the statements of secret witnesses are stereotype in nature and

at the most it can give rise to law and order situation, but not

breach of public order. She placed reliance on following

judgments delivered by this court.

A) Pappu Kachru Ghorpade vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( Criminal Writ Petition No. 1107 of 2024), delivered on 04/09/2024 & B) Rushikesh @ Bhavadya Ashok Bade vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No.46 of 2025), delivered on 07/03/2025.

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.2. According to him, the

petitioner is definitely a "Dangerous Person" within the

meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. He pointed out

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

that there is no delay in passing the impugned orders and the

same was passed after subjective satisfaction. According to

him, there are 12 offences registered against the petitioner and

aspect of bail is also considered by the respondent No.2 while

passing the impugned order. He also relied on 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, three offences of MIDC Police Station have

been considered for passing the detention order. However,

from CR No.800 of 2024 it is evident that the dispute was on

account of getting separate meter by the petitioner. Thus, it

appears that it is dispute between two persons and the crime

therefore, does not involve public at large. Moreover, the crime

No.864 of 2024 also involves personal dispute. Same is the

case with last crime i.e. CR No.137 of 2025 wherein breach of

provisions of Arms Act is involved. However, nothing is there

to show that there was notification issued under the said Act,

of which the petitioner had committed breach. As such, it is

clearly evident that the criminal activities as alleged against

the petitioner are of individual nature or arising out of

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

personal disputes without involving the public at large.

Further, it is significant to note that the petitioner has already

been released on bail in two of the aforesaid crimes and in CR

No.800 of 2024 the prosecution did not find it necessary to

arrest him and only notice was given to him. Thus, it was for

the police machinery to file applications for cancellation of bail

granted to the petitioner in two cases, if they were of the

opinion that activities of the petitioner were dangerous to the

public at large instead of taking steps for passing detention

order, which affects the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

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 detinue, 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.

7. Further, it is evident that though there were 12 crimes

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

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,

they are in respect of giving threats or snatching of certain

amount from those witnesses by the petitioner. However, those

incidents had taken long back and in the year 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. Thus, it

appears that the detaining authority has not applied his mind

while passing the impugned order.

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

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 the 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 22/07/2025 bearing No. D.C./Karya.9 C.1/774/2025 passed by respondent No.2-The District Magistrate, Ahilyanagar in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 as well as the approval order of the State Government dated 01/08/2025 and the confirmation order dated 11/09/2025 passed by respondent No.1, are

902 Cr. WP 1259-25.odt

hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) Petitioner- Santosh Raghunath Dhotre 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




VSM/