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 petitioner argued that the authorities deliberately withheld the order to immediately take him back into preventive custody upon his release. The detention order relied on two criminal cases: C.R. No. 140 of 2024 and C.R. No.127 of 2023, along with two in-camera statements. However, the petitioner was not an accused in 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 unsustainable due to the gross delay in service and the reliance on an irrelevant criminal case. 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 for 11 months until his release on bail renders the detention order unsustainable - Held that the authorities cannot hold back the order to immediately re-arrest the detenue upon release (Paras 2-3).
B) Preventive Detention - Reliance on Irrelevant Material - Typographical Error - The detention order relied on C.R. No.127 of 2023 in which the detenue was not an accused; the explanation of typographical error in the affidavit cannot cure the defect as the order itself shows reliance on that case - Held that reliance on irrelevant material vitiates the subjective 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.
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 for Respondent No.1 – State
Dikshant @ Dadu Devidas Sapkale
The State of Maharashtra and Others
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; served 11 months later after bail; order relied on a criminal case in which petitioner was not involved
Issues
Whether the detention order is vitiated 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 (C.R. No.127 of 2023) invalidates the detention order?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the detention order was passed on 18.07.2024 but served only on 23.05.2025 after his release on bail, despite authorities knowing he was in judicial custody; this was a deliberate tactic to immediately re-arrest him.
Petitioner argued that the detention order relied on C.R. No.127 of 2023 in which he was not an accused; the respondents' explanation of typographical error cannot cure the defect.
Respondents argued that the mention of 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 for an extended period renders the order unsustainable. Additionally, reliance on irrelevant material, such as a criminal case in which the detenue is not involved, vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority 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.
The authorities have explained casually by saying that this is a typographical mistake and that the authority, in fact, have relied only on C.R. No. 140 of 2024 and upon the in-camera statements.
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 was released 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:
