[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Parshuram Alias Purushottam Raghuvir ... vs The District Magistrate And Others on 22 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2758-DB
(1)
Cri. W. P. No. 1182-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1182 OF 2025
Parshuram @ Purushottam Raghuvir
Pardeshi, Age : 45 Years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. West Hudco, 100 feet Road,
Dhule. .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The District Magistrate, Dhule
District Dhule.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Additional Chief
Secretary, Govt 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 : Mr. P. S. Patil
....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 10, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 22, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) :
-
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Chaitnya Deshpande for the
petitioner and learned Mr. P.S. Patil for respondents/State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the rival parties.
Cri. W. P. No. 1182-2025.odt
3. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated
22.07.2025, bearing No. DANDAPRA/KAVI/MPDA/05/2025, passed
by respondent No.1, the State Government Approved the order of
detention on 01.08.2025 and confirmed by Respondent No.2 by the
order dated 17.09.2025 vide MPDA-0725/CR-419/SPL-33,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
detaining authority has relied upon the following offences for passing
the impugned order.
Sr. Police Station C.R. No. Sections Date of Court Status
No registration Case No.
of offence
01. Azadnagar 22/2015 IPC 01/02/2015 Session Court
353,307,143, Case No. Pending
186,189,294,
332,436,504,
506,511
Mumbai
Gambling Act
02. Chalisgaonroa 156/2018 IPC353,337,3 11/12/2018 Session Court
d 32,427,143,1 Case No. Pending
23,
504, 506, 188
read with
Criminal Law
Amendment
Act Sec. 7
read with
Maharashtra
Police Act
Sec. 37(1)
(3)/135
03. Chalisgaonroa 11/2024 IPC Sec. 11/01/2024 RCC No. Court
d 395,341,323, 167/2025 Pending
504, 506,
141,143,147,
Cri. W. P. No. 1182-2025.odt
148,149,427
read with
Arms Act
Sec. 4/25 &
Maharashtra
Police Act
Sec. 37(1)
(3)/135
04. Mohadinagar 06/2024 IPC 12/01/2024 Police Police
Sec.307,504, Investigati Investiga
506, 34 read on tion
with Arms
05. Azadnagar 51/2024 IPC Sec. 15/02/2024 RCC No. Court
307,324,504, 309/2024 Pending
506, 143,
144,147,148,
149 read with
Arms Act
Sec.4/25 &
Maharashtra
Police Act
Sec. 37(1)
(3)/135
Offense Registered Within Last 06 Months
6) Chalisgaon 138/2025 IPC Sec. 01/07/2025 Police Police
road 74,76,310(2), Investigati Investiga
189(2), on tion
191(2),352,
351(2),3(5)
Further, the detaining authority also relied on the
prevention action taken against the petitioner as follows :-
Sr. Police Station Chapter Date Section Court Status
No. Case No.
1) Chalisgaon 30/2023 11.09.202 Cr.P.C. Local Concluded
raod 3 110 Crime
Branch,
Dhule
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the
detaining authority has considered all the aforesaid offences to declare
Cri. W. P. No. 1182-2025.odt
the petitioner as dangerous person. However, there is absolutely no
live link in respect of first five offences. According to him, though the
petitioner is released on bail in those offences, which are pending
either for trial or for investigation, but the detaining authority did not
consider this fact in the impugned order. Further, the aforesaid
offences can be considered as individual in nature and no breach of
public order appears to be there. According to him, only the last
offence appears to be in-proximity of the detention order, but in that
offence also role of present petitioner is not that much serious,
because main accused in the same is different, who had in fact
outraged the modesty of the informant. He pointed out that, the
statements of secret witnesses are stereotype and on perusal of the
same, there was no danger to the public at large. At the most, it can
be said that the question of law and order would arise in those
incidents. According to him, those statements were not even verified
by the detaining authority. Accordingly, he prayed for the relief as
mentioned above. The learned counsel for the petitioner in addition
to submissions also placed reliance on the following judgments :-
(i) Nenvath Bujji Vs. State of Telangana [2024 SCC Online SC 367]
(ii) Kanu Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal [1972(3) SCC 831]
(iii) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M.M. Mehta [1995(3)
SCC 237]
(iv) Pushkar Mukharjee Vs. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC
Cri. W. P. No. 1182-2025.odt
852]
(v) Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R.H. Mendonca
[2000(6) SCC 751]
(vi) Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
1981 (4) SCC 647
(vii) Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar [1966(1) SCR 709
(viii) Joyi Kitty Joseph Vs. Union of India SLP (Cri)16893/2024
(iv) Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana [ 2023(9) SCC 587]
(x) Dhanya M. Vs. State of Kerala [ SLP (Cri) 14740/2024
(xi) Sk. Nazneen Vs. State of Telangana [ 2011(2) Supreme
575]
(xii) Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ 2011(2) Supreme 575]
(xiii) Sattar Masoom Pinjari @ Sattar Mental Vs. District Magistrate,
Dhule [Criminal Writ Petiition 865/2025 (Aurangabad Bench)
(xiv) Goal Kailas Pange Vs. District Magistrate, Dhule
[Criminal Writ Petition No. 35/2025 Aurangabad Bench]
6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is a
dangerous person as per the definition of Section 2 (b-1) of the 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, the detaining authority has given proper reasons as
to why the petitioner needs to be detained. With these submissions,
he prayed for dismissal of the petition. He also relied on following
Cri. W. P. No. 1182-2025.odt
judgments :-
(i) Ankush Vaman Pawar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Pune
and Others [2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1503:(2018) 3 AIR Bom
R (Cri) 843 (2018) 3 Bom CR (Cri) 706]
7. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nenvath Bujji
(supra) has reiterated that illegal detention order cannot be sustained
and therefore, strict compliance of the provisions is required to be
made, since it relates to the question of liberty of citizen. Further, it is
clear apparent material on record that there was no live link between
first five offences, which were considered for passing the detention
order. The fact that petitioner is released on bail in those offences, is
not reflected in the detention order. 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 back
ground if the nature of act committed by the petitioner is examined,
then it appears that it had not created deterrence to the public order
and when the bail is granted by the jurisdictional Court on certain
conditions, then the detaining authority should have examined
whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in
the identical activities. In the instant matter, the detention order is
Cri. W. P. No. 1182-2025.odt
silent on this aspect.
8. In the instant case, what is revealed that there is no live link
between the detention order and first five offences allegedly
committed by the petitioner in the period ranging from 2015 to 2024.
What is material is that, in the recent offence allegedly committed by
the petitioner there are other accused also. Further, the main act of
outraging of modesty appears to be committed by some other accused
and not by the present petitioner. Further, on going through the
statements of secret witnesses, it is evident that they are not even
verified by the detaining authority, which shows the non-application of
mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the detention
order.
9. Thus, considering all these aspects and the observations
of Hon'ble Apex Court, it reveals that there was no live link between
the first five offences and the detention order. Moreover, the
impugned order of detention appears to be passed without subjective
satisfaction and the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner are
not against the public order, but appears to be against individual. Even
the statement recorded of secret witnesses indicates that it was act
committed against the individuals for which at the most question of
law and order would arise. Though, the Advisory Board approved the
detention order of the petitioner, but still we are of the opinion that
Cri. W. P. No. 1182-2025.odt
there is no material on record to categorize the petitioner as a
dangerous person as contemplated in Section 2(b-1) of The M.P.D.A.
Act, 1981.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be
allowed and therefore, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 22.07.2025, bearing No.
Dandapra/Kavi/MPDA/05/2025, passed by respondent No.1 as
well as the approval order dated 01.08.2025 and the
confirmation order dated 17/09/2025 passed by respondent
No.2, are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Petitioner- Parshuram @ Purushottam Raghuvir Pradeshi shall
be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(Y.G. KHOBRAGADE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
