Bombay High Court

SHIVPRASAD ALIAS MANOJ ALIAS MANYA KISAN CHORGHEversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS

Decided: 31 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The detention order is quashed and set aside as it fails to meet the statutory requirements of the MPDA Act.

Summary

The petitioner, Shivprasad alias Manoj, challenged a detention order dated 08‑09‑2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA). The order relied on extensive grounds alleging the petitioner’s involvement in multiple armed offences, prior preventive actions, and in‑camera witness statements, asserting he was a "dangerous person" as defined in Section 2(b‑1) of the MPDA. The petitioner argued that the grounds were contradictory, lacked specific particulars of past offences, and thus violated his right to make an effective representation. The court examined the statutory definitions of "dangerous person" and "acting prejudicial to public order" and found that the detaining authority had improperly mixed past conduct with the subjective satisfaction requirement, rendering the order unsustainable. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release.

Issues considered

Whether the detention order under the MPDA Act complied with the requirement of specific and non‑contradictory grounds.
Whether the detaining authority’s claim of subjective satisfaction was based solely on the material cited in the grounds.
Whether the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation was violated.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 3(25), 4(25)
Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 110(g)
Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. Chapter V, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII
Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 142, 37(1), 56(1)(a)(b)

Subjects

preventive detention
dangerous person
subjective satisfaction
right to representation
quashing order
MPDA Act

Judgment

Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
URMILA
PRAMOD
by URMILA
PRAMOD
INGALE
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date:
INGALE 2026.09.01
19:04:14 +0530

WRIT PETITION NO. 1575 OF 2026

Shivprasad alias Manoj
alias Manya KisanChorghe … Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Police Pune City and ors..… Respondents

****
Ms. Anjali Raut i/b Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, for the Petitioner.
Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
****

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

DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026

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

1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated

08/09/2025 passed by the Respondent No.1-the Commissioner of

Police, Pune City directing the detention of the Petitioner under

the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous

Activities Act, 1981 (“MPDA”, for short). Along with the detention

order, the Respondent No.1 has also passed the committal order

directing the Petitioner to be detained at Jalna Prison.

1
Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

2. Heard Ms. Raut, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State.

3. The Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention

running into 15 paragraphs. Paragraph no. 2 mentioned that the

Petitioner was a weapon-wielding dangerous recidivist of violent

nature indulging in criminal activities that foster terror in society.

There is reference to his activities and it was recorded that the

Petitioner had been habitually committing body and property

offences under the Indian Penal Code, under BNS as well as under

Chapter V of the Arms Act and thus, he was a ‘Dangerous Person’

as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and that his

criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public

order.

4. Paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention mentioned 4

registered offences at Sinhagad Road Police Station which are as

follows.

(i) C.R. No. 566 of 2023 dated 20/11/2023;

(ii) C.R. No. 635 of 2023 dated 30/12/2023;

(iii) C.R. No. 580 of 2024 dated 17/10/2024 and

(iv) C.R. No. 121 of 2025 dated 26/02/2025

2
Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

All these offences were registered under Section 3(25) & 4(25) of

the Arms Act and under Section 37(1)(3) read with 135 of the

Maharashtra Police Act (“MPA’, for short).

5. Paragraph 3.2 of the grounds of detention mentioned two

preventive actions. The first one was under Section 110(g) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure initiated under Chapter Case No. 351

of 2023 dated 01/05/2023 at the instance of Sinhagad Road Police

Station and the second is externment order No. 5 of 2024 under

Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act initiated at the

instance of Sinhagad Road Police Station in December 2023. The

Chapter case was withdrawn on 11/12/2023 and the externment

order was withdrawn on 09/08/2025. On both these occasions,

these proceedings were withdrawn for taking more effective

action.

6. Paragraph 5.1 of the grounds of detention refers to C.R.

No. 56 of 2025 registered at Ambegaon Police Station under

Sections 310(4), 310(5) of BNS and under Section (4)25 of the

Arms Act and under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the

MPA. The incident is dated 08/04/2025. At about 01:05 p.m. on

3
Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

prior information, the Police arrested 13 persons including the

present Petitioner on the allegation that they were making

preparations to commit dacoity. However, nothing was found from

the present Petitioner. There were some weapons and

objectionable materials found with the other three accused. The

Petitioner had absconded and he was arrested on 26/06/2025. He

was released on bail on 09/07/2025.

7. Paragraph 5.2 of the grounds of detention refers to

C.R.No. 122 of 2025 registered at Nanded City Police Station

under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, under Section 37(1)/135

and 142 of the MPA and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law

Amendment Act. This was in respect of the incident dated

25/06/2025 when the Petitioner was seen terrorizing the people in

the locality. He was arrested on 25/06/2025 and was granted bail

on 26/06/2025.

8. Besides these two registered offences, the grounds in

paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 referred to the two in-camera statements

of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’. Those statements were recorded on

27/06/2025 & 28/06/2025. The incident involving witness ‘A’ was

4
Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

dated 15/06/2025 when the Petitioner and his associates removed

Rs.1250/- from witness ‘A’ forcibly. The passersby were also

threatened.

9. The incident involving witness ‘B’ was dated 21/06/2025.

The Petitioner and others threatened him and had beaten him.

10. Paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention specifically

mentioned that the Respondent No.1 had relied upon the material

mentioned in paragraph nos. 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1, 6.2 i.e. the two

registered offences referred hereinabove and the two in-camera

statements to reach a subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was

a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA

Act and that his criminal activities are prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

averments made in paragraph 8 regarding subjective satisfaction is

directly contrary to the averments made in paragraph 2 of the

grounds of detention. This has created confusion and it has

affected the Petitioner’s right to make earliest effective

5
Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

representation. She submitted that the the detaining authority has

not elaborated and had not given particulars regarding the past

offences mentioned in paragraph 3.1 and in respect of the

preventive action taken in the past. On both these grounds, the

detention order is liable to be set aside.

12. Learned APP on the other hand submitted with reference

to the affidavit-in-reply that the subjective satisfaction of the

Respondent No.1 was based only on the material mentioned in

paragraph nos. 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2 i.e. the C.R.No. 56 of 2025

registered with Ambegaon Police Station, C.R. No. 122 of 2025

registered with Nanded City Police Station and two in-camera

statements of witnesses ‘A’ & ‘B’. The history was mentioned only

as the background and preamble.

13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that some of

the documents relating to the earlier offences from the year 2023

to 2025 were provided, but entire documents were not provided

and those allegations are not elaborated in the grounds of

detention.

14. We have considered these submissions. Paragraph 2 of

6
Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

the grounds of detention is important. It is mentioned that the

Petitioner and his accomplices moved armed with deadly weapons

and used them to commit offences such as attempt to commit

dacoity, assembling for purpose of committing dacoity, possessing

illegal firearms etc. The people were also threatened. After

recording this, it is further mentioned that the Petitioner had been

habitually committing body and property offences under the

Indian Penal Code, under BNS as well as under Chapter V of the

Arms Act and the Petitioner is thus a dangerous person as defined

under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and that his criminal

activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

15. Section 2(a)(iv) of the MPDA reads thus :

“Section 2. Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order” means -
(i)……
(ii)…...
(iii)……
(iv) in case of a dangerous person, when he is engaged, or is
making preparation for engaging, in any of his activities as a
dangerous person, which affect adversely, or are likely to
affect adversely, the maintenance of public order.”

16. Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA defines dangerous person

which reads thus :

7
Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

“2(b-1): “dangerous person” means a person, who either by
himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits,
or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the
offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the
Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under
Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959.”

17. Thus, these averments clearly show that the Respondent

No.1 has reached the subjective satisfaction based on the past

activities and past preventive action mentioned in paragraph nos.

3.1 and 3.2. The Respondent No.1 has not restricted his subjective

satisfaction on the grounds mentioned in paragraph nos. 5.1, 5.2,

6.1 and 6.2 as is claimed in paragraph 8. The averments in

paragraph 2 and paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention are

directly contrary. This has definitely affected the Petitioner’s right

to make earliest effective representation against the detention

order. Moreover, no material is mentioned in the grounds of

detention regarding the past activities and past preventive action

mentioned in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. This has

also affected the Petitioner’s right to make effective representation.

For all these reasons, the impugned detention order has become

unsustainable. The Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the

following order.

8
Ingale 41-WP-1575-26.odt

18. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) which

reads thus :

“(b) The order of detention bearing D.O. OW.
CRIME/PCB/DET/NANDED CITY/ CHORGHE/731/2025
dated 08.09.2025 issued under Section 3 of M.P. D.A. Act
1981 by the Respondent No.1 be quashed and set aside and
on quashing the same the Petitioner be ordered for release
forthwith”

19. The Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not

required in any other offences.

20. The Petition is disposed of.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…