GANESH MAHADEV JETITHORversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS

                                                         1/9                     309-WP-1682-26.odt

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO.1682 OF 2026

                         Ganesh Mahadev Jetithor                            .... Petitioner

                                   versus

                         Commissioner of Police,
                         Pune City & Ors.                                   .... Respondents
                                                            …....

                         •     Ms. Jayashree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut, Advocate for Petitioner.
                         •     Ms. Madhavi H. Mhatre, APP for the State/Respondent.

                                            CORAM       : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                          RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
                                            DATE        : 01st OCTOBER, 2026

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


                         1.            The Petitioner has challenged the detention order

                              dated 30/10/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune

                              City/Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 also passed the

                              committal order dated 30/10/2025 directing that the Petitioner

                              be detained in Buldhana Prison, Buldhana.


MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
                         2.            Heard Ms. Jayashree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
Digitally signed
by MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.10.07
11:31:28 +0530
                              Petitioner and Ms. Madhavi H. Mhatre, learned APP for the

                              State.
             Nesarikar
                              2/9                   309-WP-1682-26.odt




3.            The Petitioner is served with the grounds of detention

     dated 30/10/2025.



4.            Learned counsel made the following submissions :



              The Respondent No.1 has based his subjective

     satisfaction on two 'In-Camera' statements of witnesses ‘A’ and

     ‘B’. Both these statements do not show that the Petitioner was

     engaged in gambling activities. They may indicate that he had

     threatened the witnesses, but those allegations are beyond the

     scope of definition under Section 2(e-1b) of The Maharashtra

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

     Act’).



5.            Ms. Tripathi submitted that the Respondent No.1 has

     also relied on CR No.345/2025 registered at Loni Kalbhor Police

     Station on 01/08/2025 u/s 12-A of the Maharashtra Prevention

     of Gambling Act, 1887. In that case, the Petitioner was not

     found at the spot. The other accused were arrested and one of
                                3/9                   309-WP-1682-26.odt

     them named the Petitioner as the person who was conducting

     those activities. Hence, there is no material against the

     Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 could not have based his

     subjective satisfaction on the material concerning this registered

     offence.



6.              She submitted that the preventive action taken against

     the Petitioner was still in operation. There was no necessity to

     pass the detention order. It could not be said that the normal

     laws of land were not effective against the Appellant. The

     Petitioner was not even arrested in CR No.345 of 2025 and the

     action taken against him u/s 110(e)(g) of Cr.P.C. was still in

     operation when the detention order was passed.



7.              The learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the

     cumulative effect of the registered offence and the 'In-Camera'

     statements show that these activities were prejudicial to the

     maintenance of public order. The Petitioner was continuously

     involved in gambling activities, and therefore, there was no

     other option but to pass the detention order to curb his
                                4/9                      309-WP-1682-26.odt

     activities. The detaining authority has rightly relied on the

     material before him to base his subjective satisfaction that the

     Petitioner's detention was necessary.



8.            We    have    considered    these    submissions.     Before

     proceeding further it is necessary to reproduce the relevant

     provisions of the MPDA Act.



9.            Section 2(a)(vi) reads thus :


              “2(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;”


10.           Section 2(e-1b) reads thus,


              “2(e-1b) – ‘person engaged in illegal gambling or illegal
              lottery’ means a person who individually or as part of a
                              5/9                       309-WP-1682-26.odt

           group of persons engaged in or in preparing to engage in
           or associated with or abets illegal gambling or illegal
           lottery or engaged in selling of illegal lottery tickets, or
           who commits or attempts to commit or abets the
           commission of offences in respect of illegal gambling or
           illegal lottery which are punishable under the provisions
           of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act or the
           Maharashtra Lotteries (Control and Tax) and Prize
           Competitions (Tax) Act, or the Lotteries (Regulation)
           Act, 1998;”


11.         Therefore, both these provisions require ingredients of

  illegal gambling. It is an essential requirement of both these

  provisions.



12.         As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the

  Petitioner, neither of the witnesses ‘A’ or ‘B’, refers to a particular

  gambling activity on the part of the Petitioner. Witness 'A' has

  stated about the incident dated 31/07/2025, at around 11.45

  pm. At that time, the Petitioner and his three accomplices had

  stopped the witness. The Petitioner had slapped him, and had

  questioned him as to why he was telling the labourers not to go

  to the Petitioner's den for gambling. The description of this
                            6/9                    309-WP-1682-26.odt

  incident shows that the Petitioner had threatened and slapped

  the witness, but it does not show that the Petitioner was in fact

  committing gambling activities.



13.        The statement of witness 'B' refers to the incident dated

  03/08/2025 that had taken place at 09.45 pm. It was a similar

  incident when the Petitioner and his accomplices had threatened

  witness 'B'. The Petitioner had warned him that if there was raid

  on his business of gambling then he would kill witness 'B'. Again,

  this incident was in respect of threats. At that point, the

  Petitioner was not seen indulging in any gambling activities.



14.        As far as the registered offence CR No.345 of 2025 at

  Loni Kalbhor Police Station is concerned, as rightly submitted by

  learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner was not seen

  actually taking part in any gambling activity. The incident was

  dated 31/07/2025, and on prior information, three persons,

  namely Tatyarao Sasane, Prahlad Gawli and Tanaji Garad were

  apprehended as they were seen indulging in gambling activities.

  One of them named him. The Petitioner was not present at the
                                7/9                 309-WP-1682-26.odt

  spot. One of them had informed the police that it was the

  business of the Petitioner.



15.        Significantly, the police did not arrest the Petitioner in

  connection with the said registered offence. Instead, they served

  him a notice u/s 35(3)(6) of BNSS. This would mean that the

  police did not want to arrest him for any purposes in connection

  with the said offence. And in that case, the authorities could not

  have resorted to initiate proceedings for passing the detention

  order against the Petitioner.



16.        Apart from these infirmities, there is one more aspect

  of the matter. The Petitioner had executed a bond u/s 110(e)(g)

  of Cr.P.C. on 09/08/2025 for a period of 2 years in the

  proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate, Hadapsar

  Division, Pune City, in Chapter Case No.391 of 2023 dated

  24/04/2023 registered at Loni Kalbhor Police Station. The said

  bond was still in operation and during that period, the detention

  order was passed. CR No.345/2025 was registered on

  01/08/2025, which was before execution of the bond on
                                8/9                  309-WP-1682-26.odt

  09/08/2025. Therefore, it cannot be said that a preventive

  action was taken earlier to the registered offence considered by

  the Respondent No.1.



17.         From the above discussion, it is clear that no effective

  action under the normal law of land was taken by the

  authorities and no steps were taken in that regard. He was not

  even arrested. In this background, passing of the detention order

  is not justified.



18.         Considering all the above aspects, we are satisfied that

  the detention order is liable to be set aside.



19.         Hence, the following order :


                                ORDER


             (i)      The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
                      clause (b), which read thus:


                      “b.   The order of Detention bearing No.
                            CRIME      PCB/      DET/LONIKALBHOR/
                            JETITHOR/ 886 /2025 Dated 30.10.2025,
                          9/9                  309-WP-1682-26.odt

                      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;”


         (ii)   The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not
                required in any other case.


         (iii) The Petition is disposed of.




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