AMOL PANDURANG SAWANTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                   1 of 7               308-WP-1134-2026
 Sagar Magar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1134 OF 2026

Amol Pandurang Sawant                                 ..Petitioner
      Versus
State of Maharashtra.                                 ..Respondent

                            __________
Mr. Saurabh Ghag a/w Ms. Nikita Chavan a/w Mr. Siddhant Raut
for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State.
                            __________

                     CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                             RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

                     DATE    : 21 AUGUST 2026

JUDGMENT (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-

1.             The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order No.

TC/PD/DO/MPDA/33/2025 dated 18th December 2025 passed by

Respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Police, Thane, under the

provisions of the Maharashtra [Prevention of Dangerous Activities]

Act, 1981 (for short, “MPDA Act”). Along with the detention Order,

Committal Order was passed and the Petitioner was directed to be

detained in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.


2.             Heard, Mr. Saurabh Ghag, learned counsel for the
                                2 of 7                 308-WP-1134-2026


Petitioner, and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent-

State.


3.        The Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention

along with the Detention Order. The grounds of detention run into

18 paragraphs. In paragraph 2, it is recorded that, according to the

Petitioner’s criminal record, he was a dangerous criminal and had

taken to the life of a criminal for the sake of easy money and to

show his upper hand in the areas within the jurisdiction of

Vitthalwadi Police Station in Thane Commissionerate.


4.        In paragraph 3, it is mentioned that he was moving

about in the above areas armed with different weapons,

committing crimes like causing hurt, threatening to take life,

attempt to commit murder, etc. These offences are punishable

under the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”), the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita (for short, “BNS”) and the Maharashtra Police Act.

He was indulging in criminal mischief and intimidating persons in

the above localities. It is further mentioned that, these activities

were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the locality
                               3 of 7                 308-WP-1134-2026


of Thane Commissionerate.


5.       Paragraph 3 thereafter, enumerates 6 offences from the

year 2022 to 2025 registered at Vitthalwadi Police Station under

various provisions of IPC, BNS and Maharashtra Police Act. The

said paragraph also refers to the preventive measures. First one is

Chapter Case No. 58/2023 under Section 110(e)(g) of Cr.P.C., in

which preventive action was taken. The second was an externment

proposal, but it was cancelled on 18th November 2025 and,

instead, the Detention Order was passed.


6.       Paragraph 3 is significant because it refers to the

averments which are as follows:


         “The Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 are the preamble
         introduction to the grounds of detention and the said
         facts mentioned in para No. 2 and 3 are not only relied
         upon by me while forming my subjective satisfaction to
         issue the present order of detention against you.”

7.       Paragraph 4 then refers to C.R. No. 593 of 2025 dated

31st August 2025 in respect of the incident dated 29th August 2025,

in which the Petitioner and his three associates had assaulted the

complainant therein.
                                4 of 7                  308-WP-1134-2026


8.        The second registered offence is C.R. No. 610 of 2025 in

respect of an incident registered with Vitthalwadi Police Station on

8th September 2025, mainly under Section 109 of the BNS. In

respect of the incident dated 8th September 2025. The Petitioner

and his associates had assaulted the complainant. The Petitioner

had assaulted the complainant with a sword on his head.


9.        Paragraph 5 refers to the in-camera statement of two

witnesses. The first in-camera statement is in respect of witness

“A”. It is in respect of an incident which took place in October

2025, which was in the nature of extortion, and the Petitioner had

allegedly taken Rs. 1,500/- from the witness.


10.       The second in-camera-statement is in respect of witness

“B”. It is in respect of the incident that had taken place in the 1st

week of November 2025, which was also in the nature of

extortion, and the Petitioner had allegedly taken Rs. 1600/- from

the witness “B”.


11.       Paragraph 6 records that, from those facts, the

Respondent No. 2 was satisfied that the Petitioner was a
                                5 of 7                  308-WP-1134-2026


“Dangerous Person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the

M.P.D.A. Act, and that his activities were prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order.


12.       Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Respondent No. 2 had taken two contrary stands in paragraphs 3

and 6. In paragraph 3, he had referred to the past activities to base

his satisfaction, whereas in paragraph 6, the Respondent No. 2 has

mentioned that he has based his satisfaction on the two registered

offences and two in-camera-statements mentioned in paragraph

Nos. 4 and 5. He submitted that this showed non-application of

mind and, therefore, prayed for setting aside the detention Order.

It also affected the Petitioner’s right to make earliest effective

representation.


13.       Learned APP, on the other hand, defended the Detention

Order. He submitted that the past activities were mentioned only

as a preamble and were reflected in paragraph 3 of the grounds of

detention. He submitted that, the detaining Authority specifically

relied upon the two registered offences and two in-camera
                                6 of 7                   308-WP-1134-2026


statements mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5.


14.        We have considered these submissions. Though the

Respondent No. 2 had referred to paragraphs 2 and 3 as the

preamble    introduction,   however      paragraph   3    specifically

mentioned that the facts mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 were

“not only relied upon by him while forming his subjective

satisfaction” (emphasis supplied) to issue the present Detention

Order. He had thus taken those past activities into consideration

while forming his subjective satisfaction. In addition, he had taken

into consideration the material mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5,

and the two registered offences and two in-camera statements, to

arrive at his subjective satisfaction. These two stands are clearly

contrary to each other. The subjective satisfaction was also based

on the past activities mentioned in paragraph 3, wherein six

registered offences and two preventive measures taken against the

Petitioner were mentioned. No necessary material was provided in

the grounds of detention in respect of those six registered offences

and the two preventive measures. All this has affected the

Petitioner’s right to make earliest effective representation and,
                                                                 7 of 7                  308-WP-1134-2026


                              therefore, on this ground, the continued detention of the Petitioner

                              would not be permissible.


                              15.       In this view of the matter, the detention Order is liable to

                              be set aside.


                              16.       Hence, the following order:


                                                              ORDER


                                              i)   The Petition is allowed.

                                              ii) The detention Order dated 18th December 2025
                                                   bearing No. TC/PD/DO/MPDA/33/2025 issued
                                                   by the Respondent No. 2 – the Commissioner of
                                                   Police, Thane is quashed and set aside.

                                              iii) The Petitioner be released forthwith if not
                                                   required in any other case.

                                              iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.



                              (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)                 (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

           Digitally signed
           by SAGAR
SAGAR   SANTOSH
SANTOSH MAGAR
MAGAR   Date:
        2026.08.25
           17:45:48 +0530