1. Introduction & Hearing (Para 1-3):
   The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the District Magistrate under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA), 1981, and subsequent approval and confirmation orders. The court invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to review the legality of these orders.

2. Petitioner’s Arguments (Para 4):
   The petitioner’s counsel argued that six criminal cases registered between 2021 and 2024 were cited as reasons for the detention, most of which were already considered in a previous detention order. Only one new case was recent (Crime No.62/2024). The counsel highlighted procedural lapses, such as lack of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority and delayed service of the confirmation order.

3. State’s Defense (Para 5):
   The State, through the learned APP, argued that the petitioner was a "dangerous person" under the MPDA Act. The authority relied on in-camera statements to justify detention. The State defended the procedural compliance, including approval by the Advisory Board.

4. Legal Framework (Para 6-7):
   The court referred to various legal precedents, emphasizing that subjective satisfaction is crucial in detention matters, and detention orders must adhere strictly to constitutional protections of personal liberty.

5. Court’s Findings – Non-Application of Mind (Para 8):
   The court observed that the detaining authority failed to apply its mind, as five out of six offenses cited were previously considered in a prior detention order. Only Crime No.62/2024 could be relevant, yet it was still under investigation, and the petitioner was in custody when the detention order was passed.

6. Doubt on In-Camera Statements (Para 9):
   The court expressed doubt on the genuineness of the in-camera witness statements, noting inconsistencies in their timelines and the trivial nature of the incidents mentioned.

7. Delay in Serving Confirmation Order (Para 10):
   The court found that the confirmation order was served on the petitioner after a delay of 56 days, which was deemed unjustifiable, further infringing on the petitioner’s personal liberty.

8. Detention Beyond Legal Scope (Para 11):
   The court criticized the overreach of the detaining authority in using subjective satisfaction without strong grounds, especially where the alleged acts only constituted a law-and-order issue, not public disorder.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 427, 392, 394, 294, 224
• Arms Act, 1959: Section 4, punishable under Section 25
• Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: Section 135
• Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that the detaining authority failed to demonstrate subjective satisfaction in passing the detention order. Five out of six offenses were already considered in a previous detention order, and the sole remaining offense was insufficient to warrant preventive detention. Additionally, procedural delays and discrepancies in the service of confirmation orders compromised the legality of the detention.

Subjects:

Preventive Detention, MPDA Act, Procedural Lapses

Detention Order Quashed, Subjective Satisfaction, Public Order, Constitutional Rights, Preventive Detention, Delay in Service, In-Camera Witness