WASIM SALIM PATELversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                              1 of 7                       305-WP-179.26.docm


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 179 OF 2026

Wasim Salim Patel.                               …     Petitioner.
     Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.             …     Respondents

                            __________

Mr.Ramji T. Kotali for the Petitioner.
Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, Addl.PP for the Respondent- State.
                             __________

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

                  DATE    : 21st AUGUST 2026.

JUDGMENT :        (Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, J.)


1.     By the present Petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge the
Detention Order bearing No.CRIME/ PCB/ DET/ KONDHWA/
PATEL/ 773/ 2025 dated 23rd September 2025 passed by
Respondent No.3- Commissioner of Police, Pune City under section
3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act,
1981
 SKN (for short “MPDA Act”) and also the Committal Order dated

23rd September 2025 whereby the Petitioner has been detained in
Chhatrapati      Sambhajinagar         Central   Prison,       Chatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
                                2 of 7               305-WP-179.26.docm


2.      Heard Mr.Kotali learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Ms.Deshmukh, learned Addl.PP for the Respondent- State.


3.      The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has
restricted his arguments to the ground of subjective satisfaction
arrived at by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention.
He submitted that the detaining Authority has based his
satisfaction on stale and old offences and that the same does not
warrant the invocation of the preventive detention law.     Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that by relying upon
the past offences and not providing the details and material in
respect thereof, the Petitioner’s right to make an effective
representation as provided under the Act has been adversely
affected.   It is submitted that on this ground alone the Detention
Order is liable to be quashed and set aside.      Learned counsel
further submitted that the stand taken by the Detaining Authority
in respect of the offences relied upon to pass the Detention Order
is, in fact, contrary and inconsistent.


4.      The learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent- State
submitted that, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
Detaining Authority is based on cogent and valid material. She
submitted that, the Detention Order is passed by relying upon the
offences mentioned in paragraph-5.1 of the grounds of detention
and two in-camera statements of Witness “A” and Witness “B” as
                               3 of 7                  305-WP-179.26.docm


mentioned in paragraphs-6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention.
Learned A.P.P. further submitted that there is a specific reference
made in paragraph-8 wherein the Detaining Authority has
specifically stated that for the purpose of passing the Detention
Order, the Authority has relied upon the material mentioned in
paragraphs-5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention for
arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner is a
dangerous person as defined in section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act
and that the activities of the Petitioner are prejudicial to the
maintenance of the public order. It is submitted that the Detention
Order is based on the cogent material.


5.      On perusal of the grounds of detention dated 23rd
September 2025 we are of the opinion that the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is based on past
offences; the material in respect of which was not provided to the
Detenue. The Detaining Authority, in paragraph-2 of the grounds
of detention, has specifically stated that the Petitioner is a weapon-
wielding dangerous recidivist of violent nature and by his acts has
indulged in criminal activities which had spread terror in the
society. It is further specifically mentioned that, the Petitioner has
become a perpetual danger to the lives and properties of people
residing and carrying out their daily activities and vocations in the
jurisdiction of Shivajinagar, Bibwewadi, Parvati and other police
stations and in Pune city.     It was further mentioned that, the
                               4 of 7                   305-WP-179.26.docm


Petitioner and his accomplices moved around armed with deadly
weapons such as sword, koyta, knife etc.              Based on these
observations the Detaining Authority has concluded that the
Petitioner is a habitual offender having committed various offences
under the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS) as well as offences under the Arms
Act and, thus, is a dangerous person as defined in section 2(b-1)
of the MPDA Act.      Based on the said satisfaction, it is further
specifically stated that the criminal activities of the Petitioner are
prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
6.      In paragraph-3 of the Detention Order, the Detaining
Authority has listed the past offences and preventive actions taken
against the Petitioner.   Perusal of the list in paragraph-3.1 of the
Detention Order would indicate that all the past offences are
mentioned.    As far as preventive action mentioned in paragraph-
3.2 is concerned, it refers to the externment action taken against
the Petitioner. We have noted that the Detaining Authority after
recording the action taken against the Petitioner and the offence
committed by the Petitioner, recorded specific satisfaction that the
actions have had no deterrent effect on the activities of the
Petitioner.
7.      In paragraph-5.1, the Detaining Authority has referred to
CR No.673/2025 dated 28th August 2025 registered with Kondhwa
Police Station under sections 351(2)(3), 352 of BNS and under
sections 37(1)/135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act. We
                                5 of 7                305-WP-179.26.docm


have also noted that the record also indicates that notice under
section 35(3) of the BNSS was served upon the Petitioner.
8.       The Detaining Authority also further relied upon in-
camera statements of witness “A” and witness “B”.          As far as
statement of witness “A” is concerned, the same has been recorded
in respect of incident dated 20th August 2025 and pertains to the
snatching of purse of the complainant’s wife. It is alleged in the
said statement that when the said witness tried to stop the
Petitioner, he showed Koyta and threatened the witness.       The in-
camera statement of witness “B” is recorded in respect of an
incident of 22nd August 2025.
9.      Perusal of paragraph-8 of the Detention Order would
indicate that the Detaining Authority has specifically mentioned
that he has relied upon the material mentioned in paragraphs-5.1,
6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention to arrive at the subjective
satisfaction that the Petitioner is a dangerous person as defined in
section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and his criminal activities are
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.     The statements
made in paragraph-8 and paragraph-2 of the grounds of detention,
in our opinion, are clearly contradictory and at variance with each
other. The contents of paragraph-2 of the Detention Order, show
that the Detaining Authority, before even considering the material
available in paragraphs-5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 of the ground of
detention,   was already satisfied that the Petitioner was a
dangerous person and his criminal activities were prejudicial to the
                               6 of 7                 305-WP-179.26.docm


maintenance of public order.     This being the case, the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority         is clearly
untenable and faulty. We also find that the Detaining Authority has
not provided the details and material in respect of the conduct and
offences mentioned in paragraph-2, paragraphs-3.1 and 3.2 of the
grounds of detention. We find that there is no material provided in
respect thereof to support the said contentions.    In doing so, the
Detaining Authority has adversely affected the ability of the
detenue to file an effective and meaningful representation against
the grounds of detention.      In our opinion, such a contradiction
and non supply of material relied upon would, impair the ability of
the detenue to file an effective representation. Any order based on
ground which adversely affect the right of the detenue to file an
effective representation, cannot be sustained.


10.     In view of the aforesaid observations, we are of the
opinion that the Detention Order and the observations made
therein have affected the right of the Petitioner to make an
effective representation.    In view thereof, the Detention Order
cannot be sustained.


11.     Hence, the following order:
                             ORDER


(i)     The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
                              7 of 7                 305-WP-179.26.docm


(ii)    The Detention Order bearing No.CRIME/ PCB/ DET/
        KONDHWA/ PATEL/ 773/ 2025 dated 23 rd September
        2025 passed by Respondent No.3- Commissioner of Police,
        Pune City is quashed and set aside.
(iii)   The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any
        other case.
(iv)    Rule is made absolute in the above terms.




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