Bombay High Court
SAGAR PREMLAL JAISWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- RULE ABSOLUTE
Holding
The detention order under Section 3 of the MPDA Act is unlawful and is hereby quashed.
Summary
Sagar Premlala Jaiswal, a bootlegger, challenged his detention order dated 19‑12‑2025 issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981. The petitioner argued that although he faced several prosecutions under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the liquor he produced contained no poisonous substances and therefore did not pose a danger to public health or order. The State contended that Jaiswal was a "dangerous person" under Section 2(b‑1) of the MPDA Act, citing his repeated offences and the alleged threat to public health. The Court examined the material, noting that while the illicit liquor had a high alcohol percentage, no toxic material was detected and the detaining authority had not provided a chemical examiner’s report to satisfy the statutory requirement of subjective satisfaction. Relying on precedent that detention for dangerous liquor must be based on concrete evidence of health hazard, the Court held the detention order unsupported and quashed it, ordering the petitioner’s immediate release.
Issues considered
- Whether the detention of the petitioner under Section 3 of the MPDA Act is justified in the absence of evidence that the illicit liquor is poisonous or hazardous to public health.
- Whether the detaining authority satisfied the requirement of subjective satisfaction and provided the necessary material (e.g., chemical analysis report) to justify the declaration of the petitioner as a dangerous person.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior offences and a preventive bond under Section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act suffice to warrant preventive detention.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug‑Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities) Act, 1981 — s. 2(b-1), 3
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 — s. 108, 30, 65(a), 65(e), 81, 93
Subjects
- preventive detention
- bootlegging
- illicit liquor
- public health
- dangerous person
- MPDA Act
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act
- subjective satisfaction
- chemical analysis
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36085-DB
(1)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 118 OF 2026
1. Sagar Premlala Jaiswal,
Age : 28 Years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Shekhpur, Post Bazarswangi
Taluka Khultabad, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Deputy Secretary,
Home Department (Special),
Mantralay, Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Magistrate,
Chh. Sambhajinagar.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Superintendent,
Central Jail, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS
….
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Harshal P. Randir
A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. A. S. Shinde
…..
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 14, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 17, 2026
FINAL ORDER (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
(2)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
learned A.P.P. at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner who is a bootlegger, has challenged
the order of detention dated 19.12.2025 passed by respondent
No.2/The District Magistrate, Chh. Sambhajinagar in exercise
of powers under Section 3 of 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 (hereinafter referred to as “MPDA Act”)
as well as the approval order of the State Government dated
29.12.2025 and the confirmation order dated 12.02.2026 by
invoking the power of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
following offences are registered against the petitioner and one
preventive action is also taken against the petitioner.
Sr Police Station C.R. No. & Under Date of Present
. Section Registratio status
N n
o.
1 Inspector, State 18/2024 u/s 65(e) of 19.01.2024 Pending
Excise, Maharashtra Prohibition trial
Divisional Act, 1949
Flying Squad,
Chh.
Sambhajinagar
(3)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
2. Inspector, State 101/2024 u/s 65(e) of 09.05.2024 Pending
Excise, C Maharashtra Prohibition trial
Division Ch. Act, 1949
Sambhajinagar
3. Sub-Inspector, 182/2024 u/s 65(e), 68 15.08.2024 Pending
State Excise, C- (a)(b) of Maharashtra trial
1 Kannad, Ch. Prohibition Act, 1949
Sambhajinagar
4. Inspector, State 315/2024 u/s 65(e) of 02.10.2024 Pending
Excise, the Maharashtra trial
Divisional Prohibition Act, 1949
Flying Squad,
Chh.
Sambhajinagar
5. Inspector, State 366/2024 u/s 65(e) of 18.12.2024 Pending
Excise, Flying Maharashtra Prohibition trial
Squad, Chh. Act, 1949
Sambhajinagar
6. Inspector, State 273/2025 u/s 65(a)(e), 24.08.2025 Pending
Excise, Flying 81, 30, 108 of the trial
Squad, Chh. Maharashtra Prohibition
Sambhajinagar Act, 1949
7. Inspector, State 268/2025 u/s 65(e) of 25.10.2025 Pending
Excise, C-3, the Maharashtra trial
Division Chh. prohibition Act, 1949
Sambhajinagar
Preventive Action
Sr. Police Station Chapter Case No. & Disposal
No. U/s.
01. Inspector, State Chapter Case No. Final bond of Rs.
Excise, C DET/112024/404/1, 10,000/- was
Division, Chh. u/s 93 Maharashtra taken
Sambhajinagar Prohibition Act, 1949
However, the detaining authority has considered mainly
last two offences viz. C.R. No. 273 of 2025 under Sections
65(a),(e), 81, 30, 108, of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act,
(4)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
1949 & C.R. No. 268 of 2025 under Section 65(e) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 both under Section 65(e) of
the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 registered by Flying
Squad of State Excise Department of District Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar on 24.08.2025 and 25.10.2025 respectively.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
petitioner is shown to be involved in selling illicit duplicate
country-liquor, but the detaining authority did not consider
the fact that there was no poisonous material found in the said
liquor. Moreover, the statements of secrete witnesses indicate
that those statements are stereotype in nature and there was
no specific date of the incident mentioned. Further, it cannot
be gathered from those statements that there was any
disturbance to the public order and at the most could reflect a
breach of personal security. He also relied following judgments
of this Court, which is as under :-
(I) Shantaram Maroti Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1536 of 2025
dated17.02.2026.
(II) Haridas Shankar Gaikwad Vs. The Commissioner of
Police and others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3071/2023
(III) Dhanubai @ Dhanno Yashwant Netlekar Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and others in Criminal W.P. 1527/2025
(IV) Santosh Raghunath Dhotre Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2024
(5)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
(V) Vishal Vijay Sonawane Vs. The District Magistrate,
Jalgaon and others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 998/2023
(VI) Sanjay Suresh Tribhuwan Vs. The District Magistrate
Jalgaon and others in Criminal W. P. 1078/2024
(VII) Ibbu Kashim Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
2025 SCC Online Bom 4690
4. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by filing affidavit-
in-reply of respondent No.3. According to him, the petitioner is
definitely a “Dangerous Person” within the meaning of Section
2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. He submitted that the detention
order under challenge, is not merely based on two offences and
the statements of the secret witnesses, but the criminal
history of the petitioner has also been taken into
consideration, for passing the same. According to him, despite
filing of similar cases in the past against the petitioner, the
petitioner continued his business of production of duplicate
country liquor. Such activities, not only disturb the public
order, but also adversely affect the health of public at large.
Moreover, people are hesitant of lodging complaints against the
petitioner due to terror created by him in the area. Thus, he
prayed for dismissal of the petition. He placed reliance on the
judgment in the case of Saraswati Santosh Rathod Vs.
Commissioner of Police Pune City and others (Criminal Writ
(6)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
Petition No.3804 of 2023) Principal Seat dated 20/06/2024.
5. On going through the impugned order of detention, it can
be seen that there are as many as seven crimes registered
against the petitioner during the period from 19.01.2024 to
25.10.2025. Moreover, a prohibitory action in the form of
Chapter Case No. DET/112024/404/1, under Section 93 of
the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 had already filed
wherein final bond of Rs.10,000/- was obtained from him.
However, after going through the impugned order of detention,
the Detaining Authority appears to have considered last two
crimes, but there is no material to show that the authority had
arrived at the subjective satisfaction, regarding the dangerous
nature of the petitioner towards public at large.
6. Admittedly, in the case of Sarswati Santosh
Rathod Vs. Commissioner of Police Pune City and Others
(supra) this Court at Principal Seat at Bombay held the
percentage of ethyl alcohol to the extent of 24% was found in
the illicit liquor seized, and therefore, the activities of the
petitioner therein was held prejudicial to maintenance of
public order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out that, this Court in the case of Ibbu Kashim Vs.
(7)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
State of Maharashtra Vs State of Maharashtra, through :
The Additional Chief Secretary (Home),Home Department
(Special) and others in Criminal W. P. No. 1319 of 2025
had considered the aforesaid judgment and observed that
though certain percentage of alcohol was found in the liquor
seized, but no poisonous material was found, and therefore,
held that, it was not hazardous to public at large.
7. In the instant cases, though the percentage of ethyl
alcohol is found in the alleged duplicate country liquor around
41 to 42% V/V, but no poisonous material was found in it. As
such, the aforesaid case relied by the prosecution is not
helpful in the instant case. As per the current view, the
bootleggers activity is not termed as threat to public order,
since the current law is sufficient to curb such activities of
bootleggers. The learned A.P.P., also pointed out that, the
petitioner is involved in production of duplicate country liquor,
which is also identified the original producer of the said
country liquor, by testing the same. However, for production of
duplicate of the said country liquor, the concerned sugar
factory has not filed any criminal prosecution against the
petitioner.
8. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in District
(8)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
Collector, Ananthapur Vs. Laxmanna, [reported in 2005
Mh.L.J. OnLine (Cri.) Supreme Court 49] it is observed as
follows:
“7. We do not think this argument of the learned
counsel can be accepted. If the detention is on
the ground that the detenu is indulging in
manufacture or transport or sale of arrack then
that by itself would not become an activity
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
because the same can be effectively dealt with
under the provisions of the Excise Act but if the
arrack sold by the detenu is dangerous to public
health then under the Act, it becomes an activity
prejudicial to the maintenance of the public
order, therefore, it becomes necessary for the
detaining authority to be satisfied on material
available to him that the arrack dealt with by
the detenu is an arrack which is dangerous to
public health to attract the provisions of the Act
and if the detaining authority is satisfied that
such material exists either in the form of report
of the Chemical Examiner or otherwise copy
such material should also be given to the
detenu to afford him an opportunity to make an
effective representation.
8. Therefore, while holding that dealing with
arrack which is dangerous to public health
would become an act prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order attracting the
(9)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
provisions of the Act. It must be held that it is
obligatory for the detaining authority to provide
the material on which it has based its
conclusion on this point. Therefore, we are in
agreement with the High Court that if the
detaining authority is of the opinion that it is
necessary to detain a person under the Act to
prevent him from indulging in sale of goods
dangerous for human consumption the same
should be based on some material and the
copies of the such material should be given to
the detenu.”
9. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid observation, it is for
the Detaining Authority to determine as to whether the act of
preparing duplicate country liquor is dangerous to the public
health, on the basis of Chemical Analyzer's report. In the
instant case, though certain reports are there showing the
higher percentage of alcohol, in the liquor produced by the
petitioner, but it is to be noted that no poisonous substance is
found in the aforesaid illicit liquor. As such, it cannot be said
that the said liquor was injurious to the public at large.
10. Under such circumstances, it appears that the petitioner,
at the most, must have created law and order situation by
indulging into business of producing duplicate and illicit
country made liquor, but certainly not a disturbance to the
(10)
Cri. W. P.118-2026 .odt
public order. Under such circumstances, the impugned order
appears to be passed without adequate supportive material
and without proper subjective satisfaction. Thus, the
impugned order and its confirmation cannot sustain. In the
result, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 19.12.2025 passed by
respondent No.2 The District Magistrate Ch.
Sambhajinagar, under Section 3 of the M.P.D.A.
Act, 1981 as well as the approval order of the State
Government dt. 29.12.2025 and the confirmation
order of the State Government dated 12.02.2026
are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Petitioner- Sagar Premlala Jaiswal shall be released
forthwith, if no required in any other offence.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ysk
Checking your session…