Bombay High Court

NAGESH GOPINATH SHINDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 1 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The detention order is not sustainable and is quashed due to contradictory grounds that affect the petitioner’s right to effective representation.

Summary

The petitioner, Nagesh Gopinath Shinde, challenged a detention order dated 20‑11‑2025 issued under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981. He argued that the grounds of detention contained contradictory statements, particularly between paragraph‑2, which relied on his past criminal activities, and paragraph‑7, which limited the authority’s satisfaction to a recent offence and two in‑camera witness statements. The respondent argued that the detaining authority had clearly articulated the basis for detention. The Court examined the definition of a "dangerous person" under Section 2(b‑1) of the MPDA Act and the requirement of subjective satisfaction. Finding a clear inconsistency that impaired the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation, the Court held the detention order unsustainable. Consequently, the order was quashed, the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith, and the petition was disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the detention order under the MPDA Act is valid despite contradictory statements in its grounds of detention.
Whether the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction, based on inconsistent grounds, satisfies the statutory requirement under the MPDA Act.

Legislation cited

Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981 — s. 2(a)(iv), 2(b-1), 3(2)

Subjects

detention order
dangerous person
MPDA Act
subjective satisfaction
conflicting grounds
public order
criminal writ petition
release

Judgment

:1: 310-wp-1705-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1705 OF 2026

Nagesh Gopinath Shinde …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others .….Respondents

-----
Mr. Shailesh Kharat, Advocate a/w. Onkar Chaudhari for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----

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 20.11.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 –

Commissioner of Police, Pune City. By a separate committal

order dated 20.11.2025, he was directed to be detained in

Central Prison, Nagpur.

2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kharat, the learned counsel for

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

Respondent-State.
1 of 8

Deshmane(PS)
:2: 310-wp-1705-26.odt

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted

that the grounds of detention served on the Petitioner

contained conflicting statements in different paragraphs and,

therefore, it has created confusion affecting the Petitioner’s

valuable right of making earliest effective representation. He

submitted that in paragraph-2 there is a clear satisfaction

recorded by the Detaining Authority that the Petitioner was a

dangerous person and his activities were prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. Paragraph-3 refers to his past

activities. In paragraph-5.1 there is a description of the last

registered offence against him; and in paragraph-6 there is a

reference to the two in-camera statements of two witnesses

who did not wish to come forward. In paragraph-7, there is a

averment that the Detaining Authority was subjectively

satisfied based on the facts mentioned in paragraphs-5 and 6

that he was a dangerous person.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted

that this averment in paragraph-7 is directly contrary to the

averments made in paragraph-2 and, therefore, it showed non-

2 of 8
:3: 310-wp-1705-26.odt

application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and

it has affected the Petitioner’s right to make effective

representation.

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

the Detaining Authority was clear in his averments. He has

specifically mentioned that the detention order was passed

based on the registered offence and two in-camera statements

as can be seen in paragraphs-7 & 8 of the grounds of detention.

6. We have considered these submissions. Before

proceeding further it is necessary to refer to the relevant

provisions under the Maharashtra [Prevention of Dangerous

Activities] Act, 1981 (for short, ‘MPDA Act). The term

‘dangerous person’ is defined under Section 2(b-1) of the

MPDA Act which reads thus:

“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.”
3 of 8
:4: 310-wp-1705-26.odt

7. In reference to the the activities of the dangerous

person, Section 2(a)(iv) of the MPDA Act reads thus:

“2. Definitions : In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires, --
(a) ‘acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order’ means ---
(i) xxxxx
(ii) xxxxx
(iii) xxxxx
(iv) in the 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.”

8. In this background of the provisions, it is necessary

to see what the Detaining Authority has stated in paragraph-2.

In that paragraph, the Respondent No.2 has mentioned that the

Petitioner moved armed with deadly weapon and used it while

committing the offences such as attempt to murder, causing

grievous hurt, unlawful assembly, extortion etc.. It is further

mentioned that he had become danger to the life of the people

residing in the jurisdiction of the Mahalunge MIDC police

4 of 8
:5: 310-wp-1705-26.odt

station. As such, due to his criminal activities there is terror in

the minds of the people and that he had habitually committed

the offences under Chapter XVI of IPC and Chapter XVII of BNS

and thus he was a “dangerous person” as defined under Section

2(b-1) of the MPID Act and that his criminal activities are

prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Paragraph-3

then mentions all his past registered offences. They were

registered at Chakan police station between 2017 to 2023.

They were C.R. Nos.1192/2017, 695/2018, 713/2018 and

174/2023. There is a reference to C.R. No.698/2025 of

Mahalunge MIDC police station but that offence was referred

to in paragraph-5 of the grounds of detention. Besides these

registered offences, paragraph-3 mentions two preventive

actions taken by Chakan Police Station. They were from the

year 2019 and 2023 respectively.

9. In paragraph-5, the details of C.R. No.698/2025

registered at Mahalunge MIDC Police Station under Section

308(3), 308(4), 74, 352 of BNS read with Section 7 of the

Criminal Law Amendment Act are mentioned. It is in respect of

5 of 8
:6: 310-wp-1705-26.odt

the incident dated 17.9.2025 which had occurred in a hotel.

The Petitioner had allegedly outraged modesty of a worker’s

wife. Paragraph-6 refers to the two in-camera statements of

witnesses “A” and “B” in respect of the incidents dated 5.9.2025

and 12.9.2025. Both the incidents were in the nature of

extortion.

10. Paragraph-7 specifically mentions thus :

“I am substantially satisfied from the above mentioned

facts in paragraph-5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 that you are a dangerous

person as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the said Act”.

Paragraph-8 further mentions that the offences and the

preventive action mentioned in paragraphs-3 & 3.1 showed

that he was a habitual criminal involved in continuous criminal

activities. He has further mentioned as follows :

“Accordingly I have relied upon the facts mentioned in

paragraphs-5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention to

arrive at my subjective satisfaction that you are a dangerous

person and your criminal activities are prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order”.

6 of 8
:7: 310-wp-1705-26.odt

11. Thus, it can be seen that in paragraphs-7 & 8 of the

grounds of detention of Detaining Authority has restricted his

subjective satisfaction to C.R. No.698/2025 of Mahalunge

MIDC police station and the two in-camera statements.

However, paragraph-2 clearly mentions that based on his past

activities he was a dangerous person as defined in Section 2(b-

1) and his criminal activities were prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. Thus, there is a clear conflict

between the two averments which has created confusion and

has affected the Petitioner’s right to make effective

representation.

12. In this view of the matter, the detention order is not

sustainable and the Petition deserves to succeed.

13. Hence, the following order:

:: O R D E R ::

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

which reads thus :

7 of 8
:8: 310-wp-1705-26.odt

“b. The order of Detention bearing Out Ward
No.PCB/DET/328/2025 dated 20.11.2025 issued u/s.
3(2) of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981, by the Respondent No.2 be
quashed and set aside and on quashing the same the
Petitioner be ordered to be released forthwith;”

ii. The Petitioner be released forthwith if not required in

any other case.

iii. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.

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

Deshmane (PS)

PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE

Digitally signed by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date: 2026.10.07
11:51:51 +0530

8 of 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…