Bombay High Court
IRFAN KARIM SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The detention order is set aside because it was issued without genuine material and was a pre‑textual preventive detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Irfan Karim Shaikh, challenged a detention order dated 24‑12‑2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, which also directed his committal to Wardha Prison. The petitioner argued that the order was a pre‑textual preventive detention lacking genuine material, noting that the case against him had been withdrawn and that in‑camera witness statements were recorded after the withdrawal to create a record. The State contended that a registered offence and the in‑camera statements justified the detention. The Court examined the grounds of detention, the withdrawn Chapter Case No.12/2024, and the timing of the in‑camera statements concerning alleged extortion incidents. It found that the authorities had decided to take stricter action before the statements were recorded, rendering the material doubtful and the detention order not bona‑fide. Consequently, the Court set aside the detention order and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release.
Issues considered
- Whether the detention order was passed with genuine material or was a pre‑textual preventive detention.
- Whether the withdrawal of the earlier chapter case and the subsequent in‑camera statements indicate mala‑fide intent.
- Whether the detaining authority satisfied the requirement of subjective satisfaction under the preventive detention law.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3(25)
- Bombay Police Act (BNSS) — s. 137
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 110(a), 110(e), 110(g)
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 326, 34, 504
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1)(3)
Subjects
- preventive detention
- in‑camera statements
- mala fide
- withdrawn case
- subjective satisfaction
- extortion
- arms possession
- criminal procedure
Judgment
:1: 311-wp-1759-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1759 OF 2026
Irfan Karim Shaikh …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others .….Respondents
-----
Ms. Nishi Singhvi, Advocate i/b. Kuldeep Nikam 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
24.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 – Commissioner of
Police, Pune City. Apart from the detention order, the Respondent
No.2 passed the committal order dated 24.12.2025 directing the
Petitioner to be detained in Wardha District Prison.
2. Heard Ms. Nishi Singhvi, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. S.V. Gavand, the learned APP for the Respondent-
State.
3. Though there are many grounds raised by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner, she restricted her arguments to the main
1 of 6
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 311-wp-1759-26.odt
ground that the detention order was passed with definite intention
to detain him though there was no genuine material available
against the Petitioner. She submitted that the grounds of detention
refers to a preventive action. It was withdrawn by clearly
mentioning that they wanted to take more effective steps against the
Petitioner and thereafter two in-camera statements of the witnesses
were recorded. This all shows that it was with deliberate design
that the statements of the witnesses were recorded in-camera only to
create record against the Petitioner.
4. The learned APP submitted that there is a registered
offence and two in-camera statements against the Petitioner and,
therefore, the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration all
the aspects in passing the detention order.
5. We have considered these submissions. The Petitioner
was served with the grounds of detention. In paragraph-3 there is a
reference to the C.R. No.7/2024 registered at Warje Malwadi Police
Station under Sections 326, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC which was
registered on 22.2.2024. In paragraph-3.2, there is a specific
reference to the preventive action. This particular preventive action
2 of 6
:3: 311-wp-1759-26.odt
and the averments in that behalf are particularly important in the
context of the present case. It is mentioned that there was a chapter
case No.12/2024 dated 14.3.2024 initiated at the instance of Warje
Malwadi police station under Section 110(a)(e)(g) of Cr.P.C.. In the
column of status it is mentioned as follows :
“On 29/01/2025, you had been executed bond of Rs.50,000/-
with 2 sureties for two years by Special Executive
Magistrate Kothrud Division, Pune City. To initiate more
effective action, on 23/09/2025 the case was withdrawn u/s.
137 of BNSS by Special Executive Magistrate, Zone III,
Pune City.” [reproduced as is mentioned in the grounds of
detention].
6. Paragraph-5.1 refers to the details of C.R. No.390/2025
registered at Warje Malwadi police station on 20.9.2025 under
Section 3(25) of the Arms Act and under Section 37(1)(3) read
with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and under Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act. The offence pertains to the incidents
dated 20.9.2025. On prior information, the police team went to the
spot opposite MHADA colony. The Petitioner was seen waving a
pistol in the air and shouting at the people living there. The
Petitioner was arrested. A country made revolver and two live
rounds were recovered from him.
3 of 6
:4: 311-wp-1759-26.odt
7. Paragraph-6 refers to the statements of two witnesses
recorded in-camera. The witness “A” has stated about the incident
dated 22.10.2025 that had taken place at 9.45 p.m. The allegations
are in the nature of extortion. The Petitioner has forcibly taken
Rs.1200/- from this witness and had damaged his pan tapri with
koyata. The statement of witness “B” refers to the incident dated
1.11.2025 that had taken at 10.45 p.m.. The description is in the
nature of offence of extortion. The Petitioner had shown a knife.
8. Based on these statements, the Detaining Authority has
recorded his subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. The
submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the
preventive actions which are referred to hereinabove in respect of
Chapter Case No.12/2024. As we have reproduced the ground in
that behalf, it is mentioned that, though the Petitioner had executed
a bond on 29.1.2025 the case was withdrawn under Section 137 of
BNSS by a Special Executive Magistrate, Zone III, Pune City on
23.9.2025. Significantly the statements of the witnesses “A” and “B”
were recorded on 27.10.2025 and 4.11.2025 respectively. These
statements were in respect of the incidents which taken place on
22.10.2025 and 1.11.2025. This indicates that on or before
4 of 6
:5: 311-wp-1759-26.odt
23.9.2025 the authorities had already decided to take more
stringent action than asking him to execute a bond. After that they
recorded in-camera statements on 27.10.2025 and 4.11.2025 in
respect of the alleged incident which had taken place after
23.9.2025. Thus, when the preventive action i.e. Chapter Case
No.12/2024 was withdrawn, that time the authorities neither had
the statements of the witnesses “A” and “B” nor those incidents had
even taken place. Inspite of that the preventive action i.e. Chapter
Case No.12/2024 was withdrawn with specific purpose to take more
effective action. All this shows that the subsequent record was
created to enable the Detaining Authority to pass the detention
order. The genuineness of the in-camera statements and the
incidents described therein is therefore extremely doubtful and we
find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the proceedings of initiating detention order are not
bonafide at all.
9. In this view of the matter, the impugned detention order
is not sustainable and it deserves to be set aside.
10. Hence, the following order:
5 of 6
:6: 311-wp-1759-26.odt
:: O R D E R ::
i. The Petition is allowed.
ii. The detention order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the
Respondent No.2 directing detention of the Petitioner is set
aside.
iii. The Petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any
other case.
iv. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Petition is
disposed of accordingly.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
2026.10.07
11:51:27
+0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…