[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vrushabh Alias Vrushikesh Alias Jabba ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 13 January, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
1 7-wp-861-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.861/2025
Suresh Tukaram Manwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal
Secretary and another
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.989/2025
Gajanan Ashok Dahale Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,
Home Department & another
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.991/2025
Manoj Chaitram Chimankar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,
Home Department and another
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.992/2025
Sanket Dilip Kanere Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department
of Home and others
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1009/2025
Gajanan Ramaji Gourkhede Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,
Home Department and others
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1013/2025
Vrushabh @ Vrushikesh @ Jabba Umeshrao Wankhade Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Home Department and another
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1023/2025
Namrata Nilesh Nile Vs. The District Magistrate, Nagpur and others
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1054/2025
Abhinesh @ Abhishek S/o Deoshankar Varma Vs. State of Maharashtra, through
AdvIsory Board of Govt. of Maharashtra & another
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1056/2025
Samir S/o Salim Quereshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal
Secretary and another
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1058/2025
Akash Sanjay Karemore Vs. State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department and others
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1060/2025
Raju s/o Bhoju Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Department of Home and others
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1062/2025
2 7-wp-861-25.odt
Anand Ravindra Gedam Vs. State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department and others
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1069/2025
Noor Khan Niyamat Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Home Department and
others
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
WP No. 861/25
Mr. A.A. Zade, Adv. h/f Mr.V.N. Patre, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for respondent / State
WP No. 989/25
Mr. S.S. Sheikh, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. K.R. Lule, APP for Respondents
WP No. 991/25
Mr. M.N. Ali, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for Respondents
WP No. 992/2025
Mr. P.J. Mehta, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Doifode, Addl. PP for respondent / state
WP No. 1009/25
Ms. Shreeya Ketkar, Adv. h/f Mr. P.D. Saliokar, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for Respondent / State
WP No. 1013/25
Mr. Y.D. Dhande, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. A.J. Gohokar, APP for Respondents
WP No. 1023/25
Mr. A.A. Krishnan, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, Addl. PP for Respondents
WP No. 1054/25
Mr. A.K. Madane, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Doifode, Addl. PP for Respondents
WP No. 1056/25
Mr. N.R. Jadhav, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Doifode, Addl. PP for Respondents
WP No. 1058/25
Mr. G.B. Mate, Adv. for Petitioners
Mrs. R.V. Sharma, APP for Respondents
WP No. 1060/2025
Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. P.S. Chawhan, Adv. for
Petitioner
Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for Respondents
WP No. 1062/25
Mr. G.B. Mate, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Doifode, Addl. PP for Respondents
WP No. 1069/25
Mr. Abdul Subhan, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for Respondents.
3 7-wp-861-25.odt
CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATED : 13th JANUARY, 2026
1. Heard.
2. Despite our order directing the respondents
to place on record the copy of order of conferment of
powers and approval of detention order passed under
Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous
Activities Act, 1981 (for short, "Act of 1981"), the
respondents have not placed the said orders before the
Court. Nonetheless, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing in each matter submits that these
orders are identical, rather are the orders which were
considered by this Court in earlier proceedings and were
quashed.
3. In an identical set of facts presented before
this Court in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 223/2025]
with connected petitions, this Court (Coram: Anil L.
Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre, JJ.), after going
through the orders passed under Sections 3(2), 3(3) and
12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous
Activities Act, 1981 (for short "MPDA Act"), in each case,
found that the State Government has exercised these
powers without providing sufficient reasons, wherein,
circumstances prevailing in entire State of Maharashtra
were treated identical. The Court took a view that such
approach depict lack of application of mind resulting
into violation of right to personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court
4 7-wp-861-25.odt
further held that detention order under Section 3(2) of
the MPDA Act and the subsequent approval under
Section 3(3) were not properly grounded and that power
to issue order of conferment, which is vested with the
State Government, only comes into play for a defined
area and period and only if circumstances prevailing or
likely to prevail are such that detention of a person
would be justified. The Court also opined that such an
order, if is to be made, it must be made while explicitly
describing specific circumstances prevailing or likely to
prevail during the time period, which should be tied to
those circumstances.
4. With regard to approval orders, the Court
noted that they were passed without recording grounds
or reasoning and were issued by an official below the
required rank. The confirmation orders, passed under
Section 12 of the Act of 1981, were also passed as
routine and were non-reasoned determinations that did
not show why detention needed to continue for twelve
months. The process, by which Section 12 confirmation
was conveyed to the detenu, was also found improper.
The Court also explained the vitality of the Advisory
Board as a constitutional safeguard and noted that in
these cases, the Board's role did not rectify the
procedural deficiencies at other stages. The Court also
held that once order of conferment of powers under
Section 3 by the State Government to its officers is found
to be illegal, the order of detention would be void ab
initio.
5. This judgment was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition
5 7-wp-861-25.odt
(Criminal) No.18690 of 2025 [State of Maharashtra and
another vs. Akshay Bhaskar Sahare]. The Supreme Court
after consideration dismissed the same by order dated
21.11.2025.
6. That being so, we need not go through the
orders of detention in each case presented before us to
render a finding on merit. It is a different matter that on
merit as well, the issue of public order, as defined under
Section 2(a) of the Act of 1981, is not taken into
consideration while passing detention order, in the cases
under question. The orders of approval are also passed
in a mechanical manner. Similar is the status of orders
that are passed under Section 12, most importantly,
orders under Section 12, conveyed to the petitioners, are
passed by Section Officer and not by competent
authority.
7. Resultantly, the issue involved is covered, for
the reasons set out in order dated 30.09.2025 passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No. 223/2025 with connected
petitions. The petitions are accordingly allowed. The
orders of detention under Section 3(2), as also, the
orders of confirmation under Section 12 of the Act of
1981 passed by the respondents, stands quashed and set
aside. The petitioners shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/01/2026 18:50:40
