LAILI MACCHINDRA GUDDAWATversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS

                      Gokhale                           1 of 9                306-wp-1194-26


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1194 OF 2026

                     Laili Macchindra Guddawat                            ..Petitioner
                           Versus
                     District Magistrate & Ors.                           ..Respondents

                                                 __________
                     Ms. Paarish B. Rupanawar for Petitioner.
                     Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for State/Respondent.
                                                 __________

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

                                         DATE    : 24 SEPTEMBER 2026

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

                     1.           The Petitioner has challenged the Detention order dated

                     30.01.2026 passed by the Respondent No.1-District Magistrate,

                     Pune. The Petitioner is detained in Nagpur Central Prison.


                     2.           Heard Ms. Paarish Rupanawar, learned counsel for the

                     Petitioner and Mr. S. G. Gavand, learned APP for the State.


                     3.           Learned counsel for the Petitioner raised following

                     grounds of objection challenging the Detention order and the

                     grounds of detention.
        Digitally
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2026.09.29
        10:42:21
        +0530
                                   2 of 9                  306-wp-1194-26


            There was non application of mind on the part of the

Respondent No.1 to pass the impugned order. There was no live

link between the offences and the instances mentioned in the

grounds of detention and passing of Detention order. The public

order was not affected by the alleged activities of the Petitioner.

They, at the highest, would amount to law and order issue. The

Authorities could have resorted to the provision under the ordinary

law to take action of cancellation of bail etc. instead of resorting to

passing of the Detention order. The ‘in-camera’ statements relied

on by the Respondent No.1 are exactly similar. It shows that they

are fabricated and are not regarding the real incidents. Even

otherwise, the incidents mentioned in those ‘in-camera’ statements

are in respect of the law and order issues and they do not affect

public order. The Detaining Authority has taken into consideration

the stale offences. She submitted that, in most of the offences, the

Petitioner was not found at the spot and, therefore, she is falsely

implicated in those offences.


4.        Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that, there

were continuous activities on the part of Detenue right from the
                                   3 of 9                   306-wp-1194-26


year 2020 till passing of the Detention order. Thus, there was a live

link and it was never snapped. The continuity in the activities is

clear from the material relied on by the Detaining authority. He

submitted that the activities of the Detenue squarely falls within

the meaning of ‘bootlegger’ as defined under the Maharashtra

(Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981 (for short ‘MPDA

Act’). He submitted that the ordinary law of land was not sufficient

to curb the activities of the Petitioner and, therefore, as a last

resort, the Detaining authority had to pass the Detention order.


5.        We have considered these submissions. ‘Bootlegger’ is

defined U/s.2(b) of the MPDA Act, as follows:


         “2(b) “bootlegger” means a person, who distills,
         manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells
         or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other
         intoxicants in contravention of any provisions of the
         Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and orders
         made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being
         in force or who knowingly expends or applies any
         money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other
         conveyance or any receptacles or any other materials
         whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing any of
         the above mentioned things by or through any other
         person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of
         any such thing;”
                                    4 of 9                  306-wp-1194-26


6.        Section 2(a)(ii) of the MPDA Act mentions that, the ‘act

in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’

means - in the case of ‘bootlegger’, when he is engaged, or is

making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a

bootlegger, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely,

the maintenance of public order.


7.        In the present case, the Detention order was passed on

30.01.2026. The Report U/s.3(3) of the MPDA Act was received by

the   State   Government     from     the    Detaining   Authority    on

02.02.2026. The State Government approved the Detention order

on 10.02.2026. The Petitioner was detained on 31.01.2026. A

reference to the Advisory board U/s.10 of the MPDA Act was made

on 17.02.2026. The opinion of the Advisory board was received on

12.03.2026. The report of the Advisory board was received on

13.03.2026. It was considered on 24.03.2026 and the Detention

order was confirmed by the Government on 24.03.2026.


8.        The grounds of detention refers to various offences and

two ‘in-camera’ statements recorded against the Petitioner. Those
                                 5 of 9                  306-wp-1194-26


offences are as follows:


             i)   C.R.No.499 of 2020 registered with Yavat police
                  station on 01.05.2020, U/s.65(b)(c)(f) of the
                  Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The Petitioner and
                  her associates were found in possession of raw
                  chemical and equipment for manufacturing illicit
                  liquor.

             ii) C.R.No.732 of 2021 registered at Yavat police
                 station on 28.08.2021, U/s.328 r/w. 34 of the IPC
                 and U/s.65(b)(c)(f) of the Maharashtra
                 Prohibition Act. In that case also the Petitioner
                 was found in possession of raw chemical and
                 equipment used for manufacturing illicit liquor in
                 a makeshift distillery near a stream.

             iii) C.R.No.1024 of 2023 registered at Yavat police
                  station on 18.08.2023, U/s.328 of the IPC, and
                  U/s.65(b)(c)(f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition
                  Act. In this case also, the Petitioner was found in
                  possession of similar material for manufacturing
                  illicit liquor.

             iv) C.R.No.1104 of 2024 registered at Yavat police
                 station on 07.11.2024, U/s.123 of the BNS 2023
                 and U/s.65(b)(c)(f) of the Maharashtra
                 Prohibition Act. In this case also the Petitioner
                 was found in possession of similar material for
                 manufacturing illicit liquor.

             v) C.R.No.468 of 2025 registered at Yavat police
                station on 21.05.2025, U/s.123 of the BNS 2023
                and U/s.65(b)(c)(f) of the Maharashtra
                Prohibition Act. In this case also the Petitioner
                was found in possession of similar material for
                manufacturing illicit liquor.
                                 6 of 9                  306-wp-1194-26


           In all these offences, the C.A. report shows that the

liquor had contained harmful proportion of ethyl alcohol.


9.        There was one preventive measure taken on 21.03.2024

in Chapter Case No.3 of 2024 U/s.93 of the Maharashtra

Prohibition Act. In that case, the Petitioner had executed a bond of

Rs.1 lakh. Apart from this history, the Detaining Authority referred

to her recent activities i.e. C.R.No.1041 of 2025 registered with

Yavat police station, on 16.12.2025, U/s.123 of the BNS 2023 and

U/s.65(b)(c)(f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The Petitioner

was found in possession of equipments worth Rs.40000/- used for

manufacturing illicit liquor using raw chemical. The material

shows presence of 10% ethyl alcohol. The Detenue was arrested on

16.12.2025. She was granted bail on 20.01.2026. This was the

recent activity before passing of the Detention order dated

30.01.2026.


10.       Besides these registered offences, there were ‘in-camera’

statements of two witnesses recorded on 30.11.2025. Witness ‘A’

stated about the incident dated 22.11.2025. The Petitioner was
                                  7 of 9                  306-wp-1194-26


selling illicit liquor. When the complainant i.e. Witness ‘A’ told her

to stop her activity, he was threatened with weapons by the

Petitioner and her associates.


11.       Witness ‘B’ stated about the incident dated 15.11.2025.

This witness also told the Petitioner not to continue with her illicit

liquor business. He was also threatened and intimidated.


12.       Thus, from the grounds of detention, it is quite clear that

there was continuing activity on the part of the petitioner which

falls within the definition of ‘bootlegger’ and all those activities

attracted the provision of Section 2(b) of the MPDA Act affecting

public order. Her activities are clearly prejudicial to maintenance

of public order within the meaning of Section 2(a)(ii) of the MPDA

Act. The live link in her activities was never snapped. The

Detaining Authority has not relied on the stale offences. Those

activities were shown to demonstrate live link. The recent activity

i.e. C.R.No.1041 of 2025 regarding the incident dated 16.12.2025

and two ‘in-camera’ statements regarding the incidents taken place

in November 2025 show that her recent activity was relevant for
                                  8 of 9                  306-wp-1194-26


passing of the Detention order. We do not find force in the

submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

Authorities could have resorted to ordinary laws of land by making

an application for cancellation of bail. From the record, it is clear

that no witness was willing to come forward to give complaint

against her. In that case, it was not possible to prefer an

application for cancellation of bail. We do not find that there was

non application of mind; on the contrary, the grounds of detention

give sufficient reasons for passing of the Detention order. The

subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is based on

cogent material. All the material referred to by the Detaining

Authority in the grounds of detention are provided to the

Petitioner and no prejudice is caused in making effective

representation. As a result, we find that the Detaining Authority

had not committed any error in passing the Detention order. We

find no merit in the petition.


13.       Hence, the following order:
                                9 of 9                 306-wp-1194-26


                                         ORDER


           i)   The Petition is dismissed.

           ii) Rule is discharged.




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