Bombay High Court

RADHYESHAN ALIAS BAJRANG ANKUSHRAO KUNDGIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The Court held that the detention order was not supported by material evidence and the petitioner could not be classified as a dangerous person under Section 2(b‑1) of the MPDA Act, and therefore quashed the order.

Summary

The petitioner challenged his preventive detention order dated 28‑08‑2025, issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, on the ground that the detaining authority had not established a live link between the alleged offences and a threat to public order, nor recorded proper subjective satisfaction. The petitioner's counsel argued that the offences relied upon were either pending, resulted in bail, or did not involve public order, and that the secret‑witness statements were vague. The State contended that the petitioner was a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2(b‑1) of the MPDA Act and that the authority had applied its mind. The Court, relying on the precedent of Hanif Alias Illu Hafiz Ansari, held that the detention order lacked material basis, ignored the bail status, and the witness statements were insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of subjective satisfaction. Consequently, the Court quashed the detention order and ordered the petitioner's immediate release.

Issues considered

Whether the detention order under the MPDA Act is valid in the absence of a live link between the alleged offences and a threat to public order
Whether the detaining authority recorded the required subjective satisfaction as mandated by the MPDA Act
Whether the petitioner’s release on bail for the alleged offences defeats the basis for preventive detention
Whether statements of secret witnesses, lacking specific incident details, can establish the petitioner as a dangerous person
Whether the petitioner falls within the definition of "dangerous person" under Section 2(b‑1) of the MPDA Act

Legislation cited

Subjects

preventive detention
dangerous person
MPDA Act
Article 226
subjective satisfaction
bail
secret witnesses
public order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:11824-DB
(1)
Cri. W. P. No.1437-25 .odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1437 OF 2025

Radhyesham @ Bajrang Ankushrao Kundgir,
Age : 28 Years, Occ. Unemployed
R/o. Murmuragalli, Old Monda,
Nanded …. PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. The District Magistrate & Collector,
Dist. Nanded.

2. The Superintendent of Police,
Nanded.

3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through : The Secretary,
Home Department (Spl) Mantralaya,
Mumbai

4. The Superintendent Aurangabad,
Central Prison, Aurangabad …. RESPONDENTS

….
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Abhaysing K. Bhosale
A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State : Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
…..

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 25/02/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 18/03/2026

ORDER ( PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) :-

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

Mr. S. P. Sonpawale for respondents/State.
(2)
Cri. W. P. No.1437-25 .odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of the rival parties.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated

28.08.2025 bearing No. 2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-53, passed

by Respondent No. 1, as well as the approval of the said detention

order by the State Government on 05.09.2025 vide its Order No.

MPDA-0925/CR-495/Spl-3B and the confirmation order dated

17.10.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3, by invoking the powers of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

detaining authority has relied upon the following offences for passing

the impugned orders.

Sr. Police C.R.No. Under Sections Date of Present
No. Station Registration Status
1. Vazirabad 334/2020 188, 269, 270, 29/06/2020 Pending
of IPC r/w 4/25 trial
of Arms Act,
1959, 135 of
Maharashtra
Police Act,1951
2. Limbgaon 90/2020 399, 402 of IPC 02/08/2020 Pending
r.w. 3/25, 4/25 Trial
of Arms Act
3. Nanded 97/2020 4/25 of Arms 23/02/2020 Pending
Rural Act, 1959 Trial
4. Nanded 174/2022 307, 386, 143, 23/02/2022 Pending
Rural 147, 148, 149 of Trial
IPC & 3/25 of
Arms Act
(3)
Cri. W. P. No.1437-25 .odt

5. Vazirabad 60/2025 308(2), 126(2), 09/02/2025 Pending
324(2), 351(2), Trial
351(3) of
Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 4/25 of
Arms Act, 1959,
3 & 4 of
Prevention of
Damage to
Public Property
Act, 1984
6. Vazirabad 308/2025 333, 74, 115, 16/07/2023 Under
352, 351(2) of Investig-
Bhartiya Nyaya ation
Sanhita, 2023,
r/w 4/15 of
Arms Act

Preventive Action :-
Sr. Police Chapter Date SectionPresent
No. Station Case No. Status
1. Vazirabad 25/2019 09/09/2024 110 Cr.P.C. Closed
2. Vazirabad 61/2024 24/08/2025 129 BNSS,2023 Closed
3. Vaizrabad 100/2025 18/04/2025 135(3)BNSS, Closed
2023

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that out

of the aforesaid offences, the detaining authority has mainly relied

upon the offence bearing C.R. No. 308 of 2025 of Vazirabad Police

Station, registered on 16.07.2025 under Sections 333, 74, 115, 352,

351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, to declare

the petitioner as a dangerous person. However, there is absolutely no

live link in respect of the first four offences allegedly committed by the

petitioner during the period from 2020 to 2022. According to him,

though the petitioner has been released on bail in the aforesaid
(4)
Cri. W. P. No.1437-25 .odt

offences, which are pending either for trial or investigation, but the

detaining authority has failed to consider this fact in the impugned

order. He further submits that the aforesaid offences are against

individuals and do not disclose any breach of public order. According

to him, only the last offence appears to be proximate to the order of

detention; however, the investigation in the said offence is yet to be

completed. He pointed out that the statements of the secret witnesses

are stereotype and merely describe the petitioner as a dangerous

person without providing particulars of any specific incidents. At the

most, it can be said that the question of law and order would arise in

those incidents. Accordingly, he prayed for the reliefs as mentioned

above. In addition to his submissions, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the

case of Shyamsingh s/o Gendasingh Mathwale vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1370 of 2025,

decided on 28.01.2026.

6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is a

“dangerous person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) 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 the “M.P.D.A. Act”).
(5)
Cri. W. P. No.1437-25 .odt

He pointed out that the detaining authority has assigned proper

reasons as to why the petitioner needs to be detained. He further

submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due

application of mind and upon recording subjective satisfaction. With

these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. Admittedly, only one offence is considered for passing the

detention order against the petitioner. However, the investigation in

the said offence is going on and in respect of earlier offences, there is

no live link. This Court, in the case of Hanif Alias Illu Hafiz Ansari

Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [AIR Online 2024 BOM 208] has

held as follows :-

“Two crimes relied upon would not form basis or
material for recording subjective satisfaction as, first
offence was of such nature that warranted only
issuance of a notice under Section 41 of the Code and
in second crime, he was released on bail. Detaining
authority had not recorded its subjective satisfaction
that statements of witnesses were genuine and it had
not interacted with ACP to verify such statement.
Order granting anticipatory bail was not placed before
the detaining authority and therefore detention order
stood quashed. ”

8. In the instant case also, there is only one crime considered for

passing the detention order, wherein the petitioner has already been
(6)
Cri. W. P. No.1437-25 .odt

released on bail. However, nothing is mentioned in the detention

order about his release on bail or he has committed breach of any of

the conditions of the bail. As such, non-mentioning of these facts

clearly indicates that the detaining authority has passed the impugned

order without application of mind and subjective satisfaction.

9. Moreover, even after perusal of statements of secret witnesses ‘A’

and ‘B’, it is clearly evident that, no specific incident has been quoted

in those statements related to them. On the contrary, the statements

are in respect of alleged deterrent behavior of the petitioner, which at

the most give rise to question of law and order considering the alleged

criminal act against the individual. As such, these statements cannot

form base of detention order. Therefore, from these statements, it

cannot be inferred that the acts of petitioner, are prejudicial to the

public order. The statements are thus not sufficient enough to curtail

the personal liberty of the petitioner.

10. In the instant case, what is revealed is that, there is no live link

between the detention order and first four offences allegedly

committed by the petitioner in the period ranging from 2020 to 2022.

What is material is that, in the recent crime also the petitioner is

charged for the offence under section Indian Arms Act along with the

other offences. However, whether any notification as per the Arms Act

was in existence is not clarified in the detention order and in the
(7)
Cri. W. P. No.1437-25 .odt

absence of such notification, there is no possibility of securing

conviction against the petitioner to that effect. Therefore, even

though the Advisory Board approved the detention order of the

petitioner, but still we are of the opinion that there is no material on

record to categorize the petitioner as a dangerous person as

contemplated in Section 2(b-1) of The M.P.D.A. Act, 1981.

11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be

allowed and therefore, we pass the following order :-

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 28.08.2025 bearing
No.2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-53, passed by
Respondent No. 1, as well as the approval of the said
detention order by the State Government on
05.09.2025 vide its Order No. MPDA-0925/CR-
495/Spl-3B and the confirmation order dated
17.10.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3, are hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) Petitioner- Radhyesham @ Bajrang Ankushrao
Kundgir shall be released forthwith, if not required
in any other offence.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
VSM/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…