SACHIN RAGHUNATH PATILversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR

                      Gokhale                            1 of 7                 307-wp-1368-26


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1368 OF 2026

                     Sachin Raghunath Patil                                 ..Petitioner
                          Versus
                     The Commissioner of Police, Thane & Anr.               ..Respondents

                                                 __________
                     Mr. Rahul Arote a/w. Jay Suryawanshi, Nikita Gawai and Megha
                     Shelke 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

                     13.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane-

                     Respondent No.1. The Petitioner is detained in Yerwada Central

                     Prison, Pune by separate Committal order dated 13.10.2025

                     passed by the same authority.


                     2.           Heard Mr. Rahul Arote, learned counsel for the Petitioner

                     and Mr. S.V. Gavand, learned APP for the State.

        Digitally
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2026.09.28
        17:37:30
        +0530
                                  2 of 7                    307-wp-1368-26


3.        Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Respondent No.1 has given a list of four registered offences and

two preventive actions taken against the Petitioner right from the

year 2022, but no material is provided in respect of those offences

and preventive actions. This is important, because, in paragraph-3,

the Detaining Authority has mentioned that the facts mentioned in

those paragraphs were not only relied by him while forming his

subjective satisfaction, but he has given further list of the offences

and ‘in-camera’ statements in paragraphs-4 and 5. Paragraph-4

refers to C.R.No.739 of 2025 registered at Shil-Daighar police

station on 12.07.2025 and paragraph-5 refers to two ‘in-camera’

statements. He submitted that the Detaining Authority has, thus,

created a confusion as to whether he has relied on the past history

or only on one registered offence and two ‘in-camera’ statements.

The Detaining Authority has not provided any material in respect

of the four offences and two preventive actions mentioned in

paragraph-3 of the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention

specifically   mentions   the   records    relating   to   grounds     in

paragraphs-4 and 5 which were produced before the Detaining
                                  3 of 7                  307-wp-1368-26


Authority. The material in respect of the other offences were not

produced before the Detaining Authority. He, therefore, submitted

that, on all these counts, the Detention order is unsustainable.


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

paragraph-3 of the grounds of detention mentions that the past

history mentioned in paragraphs-2 and 3 was the preamble

introduction and it was not relied upon by the Detaining Authority

while forming the subjective satisfaction.


5.        We have considered these submissions. The Petitioner is

served with the grounds of detention on 13.10.2025 which run

into 17 paragraphs. Paragraph-2 records that the Petitioner was a

violent type of dangerous criminal having 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 Shil-Daighar police station in

Thane Commissionarate. The said paragraph and paragraph-3

further added that the Petitioner was moving in the above areas

armed with different kinds of weapons and committed crimes like

threatening, hurt, abusing, extortion, attempt to commit murder,
                                 4 of 7                 307-wp-1368-26


rioting etc. All these cases fall under Chapter XVI and XVII of the

IPC, Chapter VI, XIII, XIX of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and

Chapter V of the Arms Act. The action of detention taken against

him is on the basis of the offences registered under sections

118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 324(5), 324(6), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of

the BNS r/w. Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. Paragraph-3

thereafter mentions four offences registered at Shil-Daighar police

station as follows:


              i)   C.R.No.12 of 2022 registered at Shil-Daighar
                   police station, on 13.01.2022, under sections
                   143, 144, 148, 447, 387, 504 and 506(2) of the
                   IPC.

              ii) C.R.No.42 of 2022 registered at Shil-Daighar
                  police station, on 08.02.2022, under sections
                  324, 143, 148, 149 504 and 506 of the IPC.

              iii) C.R.No.12 of 2023 registered at Shil-Daighar
                   police station, on 07.01.2023, under sections
                   324, 323 and 504 of the IPC.

              iv) C.R.No.93 of 2023 registered at Shil-Daighar
                  police station, on 03.03.2023, under sections
                  307, 326, 385, 504, 34 of the IPC.

            All these offences were in the nature of extortion,

causing hurt and attempt to commit murder. The same paragraph

refers to two preventive actions taken under section 110(e)(g) of
                                     5 of 7                     307-wp-1368-26


the Cr.PC and U/s.56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Importantly, paragraph-3 ends with the following averment:

        “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 the Detaining Authority while
        forming his subjective satisfaction to issue the
        present Detention order.”


6.           Paragraph-4   then    refers     to   C.R.No.739    of    2025

registered     at   Shil-Daighar   police     station,   on   12.07.2025.

Paragraph-5 refers to two ‘in-camera’ statements. Thus, reading

paragraph Nos.3 and 4 together makes it clear that the Detaining

Authority has not only relied upon the past history mentioned in

paragraph-3, but has also relied on the material mentioned in

paragraphs-4 and 5.


7.           Paragraph-4 refers to C.R.No.739 of 2025 in respect of

the incident dated 11.07.2025. In that incident, the Petitioner had

threatened the complainant and had damaged his vehicle. He had

threatened two people going on the motorcycle. The ‘in-camera’

statements referred to two incidents which had taken place in July

2025 and August 2025. They are also in the nature of extortion.
                                   6 of 7                       307-wp-1368-26


8.         Therefore, we find substance in the submission of the

learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Detaining Authority has

based his subjective satisfaction not only on the material referred

to in paragraphs-4 and 5 i.e. C.R.No.739 of 2025 and two ‘in-

camera’ statements, but also on the past history mentioned in

paragraph-3 referred to herein above. The Petitioner is not

supplied with any document in respect of the material mentioned

in paragraph-3 i.e. registered offences in the year 2022 and 2023,

and two preventive actions. This has created confusion and has

deprived    the    petitioner   from        making   earliest     effective

representation before the Authorities. This has affected his

fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable

and is required to be set aside.


9.         Hence, the following order:


                                            ORDER


              i)   The Detention order dated 13.10.2025 passed by
                   the Respondent No.1, bearing No.TC/ PD/ DO/
                   MPDA/ 23/ 2025 is set aside.
                               7 of 7                  307-wp-1368-26


           ii) The Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith
               if not required in any other case.

           iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

           iv) The writ petition is disposed of.




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