[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shantaram Maroti Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6888-DB
(1)
1536-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1536 OF 2025
1. Shantaram Maroti Shinde,
Age : 44 Years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Palskheda Tq. Soygaon,
District Chh. Sambhajinagar ,.PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Section Officer,
Home Department (Special),
2nd Floor, Mantralay, Mumbai-32.
2. The District Magistrate,
Collector and District Magistrate Office,
Chh. Sambhajinagar
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Harsool, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar. ..RESPONDENTS
.....
Advocate for the Petitioner : Adv. Sunita G. Sonawane
A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mrs. Chaitali R. Choudhari
.....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 14, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: FEBRUARY 17, 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. at the stage of admission.
1536-2025.odt
2. The petitioner who is a bootlegger, has challenged
the order of detention dated 20.08.2025 passed by respondent
No.2/The District Magistrate, Dhule in exercise of powers
under Section 3 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 "MPDA Act") as well as the
approval order of the State Government dated 28.08.2025 and
the confirmation order dated 09.09.2025 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 one
preventive action is also taken against the petitioner.
Sr. Police C.R. No. & Under Date of Present
No. Station Section Registration status
1. Fardapur 44/2024 u/s 65(f) 23.03.2024 Pending
of Maharashtra trial
Prohibition Act,
2. Fardapur 169/2024, u/s 25.10.2024 Pending
65(f) of trial
Maharashtra
Prohibition Act,
1536-2025.odt
3. Fardapur 02/2025 u/s 65(f) 11.01.2025 Pending
of Maharashtra trial
Prohibition Act,
4. Fardapur 17/2025 u/s 65(f) 28.02.2025 Pending
Maharashtra trial
Prohibition Act,
5. Fardapur 30/2025 u/s 65(f) 30.03.2025 Pending
Maharashtra trial
Prohibition Act,
6. Fardapur 69/2025 u/s 65(f) 19.06.2025 Pending
Maharashtra trial
Prohibition Act,
Preventive Action
Sr. Police Station Chapter Case No. & Present status
. U/s.
No
.
01 Fardapur, 06/2023 u/s 93 of the Final bond of Rs.
. District Maharashtra 25,000/- was
Chhatrapati Prohibition Act, 1949 taken
Sambhajinagar
However, the detaining authority has considered mainly
last three offences viz. C.R. No. 17 of 2025, C.R. No. 30 of
2025 and C.R. No. 69 of 2025 all under Section 65(F) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 registered with Fardapur
Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on
28.02.2025, 30.03.2025 and 19.06.2025. According to the
learned Adv. Sunita Sonawane, though the petitioner is
1536-2025.odt
shown to be involved in selling illicit country-liquor, but the
investigating machinery did not consider the fact that there
was no poisonous material found in the liquor. Moreover, the
statements of secrete witnesses indicate that there was no
disturbance to the public order and those statements are
stereotype in nature and at the most could reflect a breach of
personal security. In support of her submission, the learned
Advocate for the petitioner relied on the following two
judgments of this Bench :-
(i) Karim Bindu Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra
in [Criminal Writ Petition No. 1014 of 2025 dated
11.09.2025].
(ii) Ibbu Kashim @ Kasim Nuriwale Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, in [Criminal Writ Petition No. 1319 of
2025 decided on 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.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 submitted that the detention
order under challenge, is not merely based on three offences
and the statements of the secret witnesses, but the chequered
history of the petitioner has been taken into consideration, for
passing the same. According to him, despite filing of similar
cases against the petitioner, the petitioner continued his
1536-2025.odt
business of production of country made liquor. Such
activities, not only disturbed the public order, but also
adversely affect the health of public at large. Moreover, people
are hesitant of lodging complaints against the petitioner due to
terror created by him in the area. Thus, he prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
5. On going through the impugned order of detention,
it can be seen that there are as many as six crimes, registered
against the petitioner during the period from 23.03.2024 to
19.06.2025. Moreover, a prohibitory action in the form of
Chapter Case 6 of 2023, had already filed wherein final bond
of Rs. 25,000/- was obtained from him. However, after going
through the impugned order of detention, the detaining
authority appears to have considered last three crimes, but
there is no material to show that the authority had arrived at
the subjective satisfaction, regarding the dangerous nature of
the petitioner towards public at large.
6. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in District
Collector, Ananthapur Vs. Laxmanna, [reported in 2005
Mh.L.J. OnLine (Cri.) Supreme Court 49] it is observed as
follows:
1536-2025.odt
"7. We do not think this argument of the learned
counsel can be accepted. If the detention is on
the ground that the detenu is indulging in
manufacture or transport or sale of arrack
then that by itself would not become an
activity prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order because the same can be
effectively dealt with under the provisions of
the Excise Act but if the arrack sold by the
detenu is dangerous to public health then
under the Act, it becomes an activity
prejudicial to the maintenance of the public
order, therefore, it becomes necessary for the
detaining authority to be satisfied on material
available to him that the arrack dealt with by
the detenu is an arrack which is dangerous to
public health to attract the provisions of the
Act and if the detaining authority is satisfied
that such material exists either in the form of
report of the Chemical Examiner or otherwise
copy such material should also be given to the
detenu to afford him an opportunity to make
an effective representation.
8. Therefore, while holding that dealing with
arrack which is dangerous to public health
would become an act prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order attracting the
provisions of the Act. It must be held that it is
obligatory for the detaining authority to
provide the material on which it has based its
1536-2025.odt
conclusion on this point. Therefore, we are in
agreement with the High Court that if the
detaining authority is of the opinion that it is
necessary to detain a person under the Act to
prevent him from indulging in sale of goods
dangerous for human consumption the same
should be based on some material and the
copies of the such material should be given to
the detenu."
7. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid observation, it is
for the detaining authority to determine, whether the act of
preparing illicit country liquor is dangerous to the public
health, on the basis of Chemical Analyzer's report. In the
instant case, in C.R. No. 17 of 2025, the illicit country made
liquor is having 10% volume to volume ethyl alcohol, whereas
in C.R. No. 30 of 2025, there is only 8% and in C.R. 69 of
2025, there is 26% ethyl alcohol is found. It is to be noted that
no poisonous substance is found in the aforesaid illicit liquor.
As such, it cannot be said that the said liquor was injurious to
the public at large.
8. Under such circumstances, it appears that the
petitioner at the most must have created law and order
situation by indulging into business of producing country
1536-2025.odt
made liquor, but certainly not a disturbance to the public
order, as no poisonous material was found in the C.A. report.
Under such circumstances, the impugned order appears to be
passed without adequate supportive material and without
proper subjective satisfaction. Thus, the impugned order and
its confirmation cannot be sustained. In the result, we pass
the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 20.08.2025, bearing
passed by respondent No.2 The District Magistrate
Dhule, under Section 3 of the M.P.D.A. Act, 1981
as well as the approval order of the State
Government dated 28.08.2025 and the
confirmation order dated 09.09.2025 passed by
respondent No.3, are hereby quashed and set
aside.
(iii) Petitioner- Shantaram Maroti Shinde 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
