Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition challenging a detention order under the MPDA Act, which directed his detention for 12 months on grounds of being a 'dangerous person' prejudicial to public order. The order was based on two recent offences under the Arms Act and in-camera statements of witnesses. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider bail documents, making the subjective satisfaction flawed, and that the in-camera statements were vague and unverified. The State defended the order, citing the petitioner's habitual offending and threat to public order. The High Court, after reviewing submissions and records, held that the authority did not adhere to constitutional safeguards under Article 22, particularly by not providing bail documents for effective representation and by relying on vague statements. The Court quashed the detention order, emphasizing the need for strict procedural compliance in preventive detention cases.
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, quashed the detention order dated 08.08.2025 and confirmation order dated 17.09.2025 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) -- The petitioner challenged the order on grounds including failure to consider bail documents, vagueness of in-camera statements, and lack of notification under the Arms Act -- The Court held that the detaining authority did not achieve subjective satisfaction as required, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India -- The detention was based on two recent offences under the Arms Act and in-camera statements, but the authority failed to examine bail conditions and verify statements properly -- The Court emphasized that preventive detention, while permissible, must follow constitutional safeguards scrupulously -- The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the detention order under the MPDA Act was valid given procedural lapses and lack of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order and confirmation order, and directed the petitioner to be released forthwith
