SNEHA PRAVIN CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                      Gokhale                           1 of 7                309-wp-1470-26


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1470 OF 2026

                     Sneha Pravin Chavan                                  ..Petitioner
                          Versus
                     The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                      ..Respondents

                                                 __________
                     Mr. Ishan Paradkar a/w. Satyavrat Joshi, Yash Fadtare and Ms.
                     Nawaz Dordi for Petitioner.
                     Ms. M. H. Mhatre, 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

                     20.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune-

                     Respondent No.2. By a separate Committal order, the Detenue i.e.

                     the husband of the Petitioner was directed to be detained in

                     Buldhana Prison, Buldhana.


                     2.           Heard Mr. Ishan Paradkar, learned counsel for the

                     Petitioner and Ms. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the State.

        Digitally
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2026.09.29
        10:42:55
        +0530
                                  2 of 7                     309-wp-1470-26


3.        Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

grounds of detention referred to one registered offence and two

‘in-camera’ statements, based on which the Detention order is

passed. However, none of these instances show that the Petitioner’s

husband i.e. the Detenue was indulging in any of the activities

which were termed as gambling activities within the meaning

Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981 (for

short ‘MPDA Act’). He, therefore, submitted that the Detention

order is bad because it is not based on cogent material; which

shows non application of mind on the part of the Respondent

No.2.


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

arrested in the registered offence and was granted bail which

shows that he was indulging in gambling activities. The ‘in-camera’

statements also show that he was indulging in gambling activities

and, therefore, the Detention order is proper.


5.        We    have    considered         these   submissions.   Before

proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provision
                                   3 of 7                 309-wp-1470-26


under the MPDA Act in respect of the gambling activities. The

relevant provision is U/s.2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act, reads as

follows:


           “2. Definitions

                (a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to
           the maintenance of public order” means-

                  (vi) in the case of a person engaged in
           illegal gambling or illegal lottery, when he is
           engaged or is making preparations for
           engaging in any of his activities as a person,
           engaged in illegal gambling or illegal lottery,
           which affects adversely, or are likely to affect
           adversely, the maintenance of public order.”



6.          Thus, if the order is passed because the Detenue’s

activities fall within Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act, then the

provisions of that section are required to be fulfilled. The said

definition refers to illegal gambling activities or to his making

preparations for engaging in any of these activities.


7.          The grounds of detention provided to the Detenue

specifically refers to Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act, under

which the Detention order was passed.
                                  4 of 7                309-wp-1470-26


8.        The grounds of detention runs into 15 paragraphs.

Paragraph-3 refers to five registered offences at Samarth police

station from the year 2020 to 2025. All these offences were

registered U/s.12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling

Act. On all these occasions, he was arrested, but was served with

the Notice, either U/s.41(a)(1) of the Cr.PC or U/s.35(3) of the

BNSS. There is a reference to two preventive actions taken in the

past. The second preventive action was withdrawn. The Detention

order, however, was based on C.R.No.256 of 2025 registered at

Samarth   Police   station   on   17.11.2025,   U/s.12(a)   of   the

Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, U/s.4(25) of the Arms

Act and U/s.37(1)(3) r/w. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, as

well as, on two ‘in-camera’ statements of Witness ‘A’ and Witness

‘B’. In C.R.No.256 of 2025, the Detenue was arrested on

18.11.2025 and was released on bail on 26.11.2025.


9.        C.R.No.256 of 2025 referred to the incident dated

17.11.2025. On that day, one Audumbar Sonawane was stopped

within the limits of Samarth police station, as he was moving

suspiciously. He admitted that, he was accepting gambling bets. At
                                 5 of 7                 309-wp-1470-26


that time, the Detenue was not present, but the said Audumbar

Sonawane told the police that he was accepting bets on behalf of

the Detenue. The investigation was carried out. A copy of the

charge-sheet is annexed to the grounds of detention. There is no

independent evidence to show that the Detenue was found

indulging in gambling activities. His house search showed that he

had cash around Rs.2 lakhs and a sword in his possession, but

there was no apparatus or material relating to gambling anywhere.

The charge-sheet does not indicate that the Detenue was

conducting any gaming house. In short, the entire material in the

charge-sheet does not show as to how it can be said that the

Detenue was indulging in gambling activities. The subjective

satisfaction of the Detaining Authority does not refer to any

particular material to reach his satisfaction as to how the Detenue

was indulging in gambling activities.


10.       Witness ‘A’ has stated about the incident dated

02.12.2025. The Detenue wanted the Witness ‘A’ to use his money

in his gambling activities. When the witness refused, the Detenue

assaulted him. Here also, Witness ‘A’ had not seen any activities
                                   6 of 7                309-wp-1470-26


which would be in the nature of gambling activities. The

grievance was about the assault.


11.       Witness ‘B’ spoke about the incident dated 05.12.2025.

In this incident also, the said witness was threatened. He has also

not referred to any gambling activities.


            Thus, the activities attributed to the Detenue by these

witnesses may amount to other offences, but there is no direct

material showing that he was actually involved in gambling

activities within the meaning of Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act.

The Detaining Authority has not applied his mind to this aspect

and there is no cogent material referred to by him in that regard.


12.       Thus, we find that the material on record does not

attract Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act. Therefore, the Detention

order is not sustainable.


13.       Hence, the following order:


                                            ORDER


              i)   Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
                                7 of 7                 309-wp-1470-26


               (b); which reads as follows:

               “(b) The Detention Order No. OW.No./CRIME
               PCB/DET/SAMARTH/CHAVHAN/165/2024              dated
               20.02.2026 issued under Section 3 of M.P.D.A. Act
               1981 by the Respondent No.2 against the husband of
               the Petitioner be quashed and set aside and on
               quashing the same, the husband of the Petitioner be
               ordered to be released forthwith.”

           ii) The Detenue be released forthwith if not required
               in any other case.

           iii) The writ petition is disposed of.




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