Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dikshant @ Dadu Devidas Sapkale, challenged a preventive detention order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalgaon under the MPDA Act. The petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with C.R. No. 140 of 2024 at the time the order was passed. The detention order was not served on him while he was in jail; it was served only after he was released on bail on 23.05.2025, nearly 11 months later. The grounds of detention relied on two criminal cases: C.R. No. 140 of 2024 and C.R. No.127 of 2023, along with two in-camera statements. The petitioner argued that he was not an accused or connected with C.R. No.127 of 2023. The respondents in their affidavit claimed it was a typographical error and that only C.R. No. 140 of 2024 was relied upon. The court held that the detention order was illegal due to the failure to serve it promptly on the detenue while in judicial custody, and because the order itself showed reliance on an irrelevant case (C.R. No.127 of 2023), which could not be cured by an affidavit. The court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner's release.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Service of Detention Order - Delay in Service - The detention order must be served on the detenue promptly, even if he is in judicial custody; failure to do so and serving it only after release on bail after 11 months renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable. (Paras 2-3)
B) Preventive Detention - Reliance on Irrelevant Material - Typographical Error - Reliance on a criminal case (C.R. No.127 of 2023) in which the detenue was not an accused or connected, even if claimed as a typographical error, vitiates the detention order as the order itself shows reliance on that case as part of the foundation for the detaining authority's satisfaction. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under 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 (MPDA Act) is valid when it was not served on the detenue while he was in judicial custody and when it relied on a criminal case in which the detenue was not involved.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 18.07.2024, and directed the petitioner's release forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention order must be served promptly on detenue even if in judicial custody
- reliance on irrelevant material vitiates detention order
- typographical error in detention order cannot be cured by affidavit
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No.1100 of 2025
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Hiten S. Venegavkar
Mr. Harshal P. Randhir for Petitioner, Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State
Dikshant @ Dadu Devidas Sapkale
The State of Maharashtra through Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra through District Magistrate, Jalgaon; The State of Maharashtra through Superintendent, Central Prison Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging preventive detention order under MPDA Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of detention order dated 18.07.2024 and release of petitioner
Filing Reason
Detention order not served on petitioner while in judicial custody; reliance on irrelevant criminal case
Issues
Whether the detention order is illegal due to non-service on the detenue while he was in judicial custody?
Whether reliance on a criminal case in which the detenue was not involved vitiates the detention order?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the detention order was passed on 18.07.2024 but served only after his release on bail on 23.05.2025, nearly 11 months later, despite authorities knowing he was in jail.
Petitioner argued that the grounds of detention relied on C.R. No.127 of 2023 in which he was not an accused or connected, and the respondents' explanation of typographical error cannot cure the defect.
Respondents argued that the reference to C.R. No.127 of 2023 was a typographical mistake and only C.R. No. 140 of 2024 and in-camera statements were relied upon.
Ratio Decidendi
A preventive detention order must be served promptly on the detenue even if he is in judicial custody; failure to do so renders the detention illegal. Reliance on irrelevant material, such as a criminal case in which the detenue is not involved, vitiates the detention order and cannot be cured by subsequent explanation.
Judgment Excerpts
The detention order came to be served upon the petitioner only after he was released on bail on 23.05.2025, that was nearly after 11 months later.
He argued that one of the crimes that has been considered for the purpose of passing detention order is C.R. No.127 of 2023. He argued that the petitioner is neither an accused or witnessed nor even remotely connected with the said crime.
Procedural History
The detention order was passed on 18.07.2024 by the District Magistrate, Jalgaon. The petitioner was in judicial custody at that time. The order was not served until 23.05.2025 after the petitioner's release on bail. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order.
Acts & Sections
- 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:
