Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14
The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 22‑11‑2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981. The order was based on two criminal cases and two in‑camera witness statements, but the petitioner alleged that …
The petitioner, Ganesh Mahadev Jetithor, challenged a detention order dated 30‑10‑2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police under Section 3 of the Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981. The petitioner argued that the material relied upon – two in‑camera witness statements and a …
The petitioner, Nagesh Gopinath Shinde, challenged a detention order dated 20‑11‑2025 issued under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981. He argued that the grounds of detention contained contradictory statements, particularly between paragraph‑2, which …
The petitioner, Laili Macchindra Guddawat, challenged a preventive detention order dated 30 January 2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Pune, alleging that the authority did not apply its mind and that the alleged offences bore no live link to public order. The State contended that the …
The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 20‑02‑2026 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, against her husband under Section 3 of the Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981. The order was based on a single registered offence under the Maharashtra Prevention of …
The petitioner challenged a detention order issued under the Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981, which initially limited his detention to 90 days. After an Advisory Board report, the State Government issued a Detention Confirmation Order extending the detention to a total of …
The petitioner, Aman Ibrahim Khan, challenged a detention order issued under the Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981, which placed him in Nagpur Central Prison. The order was based on a mixture of past offences, recent violent incidents, and two in‑camera witness statements, …
The petitioner challenged the preventive detention of his son Rohit Gangurde under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, arguing that the detaining authority improperly relied on past offences and earlier detention orders, thereby lacking a proper application of mind. The …
The petitioner, a pregnant woman, challenged a detention order issued under the Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981, which labeled her a 'bootlegger' and ordered her detention in Kolhapur Central Prison. The court examined the factual basis of the order, noting that the only …
The petitioner, Shivprasad alias Manoj, challenged a detention order dated 08‑09‑2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA). The order relied on extensive grounds alleging the petitioner’s involvement in multiple …
The petitioner, Wasim Salim Patel, challenged a detention order issued under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, alleging that the detaining authority relied on stale past offences and failed to disclose material supporting its subjective satisfaction that …
The petitioner, Saddam Irfan Ansari, challenged a detention order dated 24 December 2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The order relied on the authority’s subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was a “dangerous …
Amol Pandurang Sawant challenged a detention order issued by the Thane Commissioner of Police under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The order relied on a preamble describing his past criminal conduct and on specific recent offences and in‑camera statements. The …
Vishal Bandu Raut challenged a detention order issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, which relied on his alleged past criminal conduct and two in‑camera statements. The court examined whether the authority’s subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was a …
