AMAAN @ AMAN IBRAHM KHANversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS

                      Gokhale                           1 of 13                   322-wp-2144-26 (J)


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2144 OF 2026

                     Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan                                   ..Petitioner
                          Versus
                     The Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors.                    ..Respondents

                                                 __________
                     Mr. Ashraf Ali Shaikh a/w. Ibrahim Shaikh for Petitioner.
                     Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for State/Respondent.
                                                 __________

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

                                          DATE     : 18 SEPTEMBER 2026

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

                     1.           This petition is taken out of turn for final hearing

                     because the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

                     Petitioner’s mother is not well. He tendered the medical certificate

                     issued by Apollo Hospitals, Pune dated 08.09.2026 and certificate

                     issued by Shivmangal Multispeciality Hospital, Pune, dated

                     13.08.2026. The copies of the certificates are taken on record and

                     marked       ‘X’   collectively   for    identification.   Therefore,      on

                     humanitarian grounds we are taking this matter out of turn for

                     final hearing.
        Digitally
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2026.09.22
        16:35:30
        +0530
                                2 of 13                  322-wp-2144-26 (J)


2.         Heard Mr. Ashraf Shaikh, learned counsel for the

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

Respondents.


3.         The Petitioner has challenged the Detention order dated

06.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 Commissioner of

Police, Pune directing his detention under The Maharashtra

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

Act’). Along with the Detention order, the Committal order was

also passed on 06.12.2025 directing his detention in Nagpur

Central Prison, Nagpur.


4.         The Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention

running into fifteen paragraphs. There are various averments in

the grounds of detention. Paragraph-2 refers to his past history

and, significantly, mentions that, thus, he was a ‘Dangerous Person’

as defined U/s.2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and his criminal activities

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

gives a list of three offences registered at Samarth police station, as

follows:
                               3 of 13                 322-wp-2144-26 (J)


             i)   C.R.No.42 of 2022 dated 19.03.2022 U/s.143,
                  147, 149, 352, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.

             ii) C.R.No. 188 of 2022 dated 29.10.2022, U/s.326,
                 324 r/w. 34 of the IPC and U/s.75 of the Juvenile
                 Justice Act.

             iii) C.R.No.95 of 2023 dated 16.04.2023, U/s.387,
                  326, 324, 427 r/w. 34 of the IPC and U/s.37(1)
                  (3)/135 of Maharashtra Police Act.



5.        Paragraph-3.2 refers to three previous preventive actions

taken at the instance of Samarth Police station, as follows:


             i)   Chapter case No.8 of 2022 dated 22.03.2022,
                  U/s.107 of the Cr.PC., in which, the Petitioner
                  had executed a bond of Rs.10000/- on
                  28.03.2022.

             ii) Chapter Case No.13 of 2023 dated 11.08.2023,
                 U/s.56(1)(a)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act. The
                 Petitioner was externed for one year from
                 11.08.2023.

             iii) Chapter Case No.45 of 2024 dated 04.11.2024,
                  U/s.129(e)(g) of BNSS. The Petitioner had
                  executed a bond of Rs.25000/- on 25.11.2024
                  with two sureties for two years. It is further
                  mentioned that, during the bond period, the
                  Petitioner had committed the offences vide
                  C.R.No.160 of 2025 and C.R.No.250 of 2025 of
                  Samarth Police station. Therefore, to initiate
                  more effective action, the case was withdrawn
                  U/s.141(1)(a)(b) of the BNSS.
                               4 of 13                322-wp-2144-26 (J)


           It is mentioned that the preventive actions were

insufficient to curtail his dangerous criminal activities, which

continued to show an ascending trend and were prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. It is further mentioned that the

preventive actions were shown only to highlight his desperate

tendencies to commit violent crime.


6.        Paragraph-4 mentions that, his involvement was noticed

in the recent offences which would show that he was a ‘Dangerous

Person’ as defined U/s.2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, and those activities

were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined

U/s.2(a)(iv) of the MPDA Act. Those activities are mentioned in

paragraphs-5 and 6. The paragraph-5 gives list of three registered

offences at Samarth Police station, as follows:


             i)   C.R.No.160 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025,
                  U/s.118(2), 118(1), 125(a), 189(2), 189(4),
                  190, 191(3) of BNS, U/s.4(25) of the Arms Act,
                  U/s.37(1)/135 of MPA and U/s.7 of Criminal Law
                  Amendment Act.

             ii) C.R.No.250 of 2025 dated 11.11.2025,
                 U/s.351(3) and 352 of BNS, U/s.4(25) of the
                 Arms Act, U/s.37(1)(3)/135 of MPA and U/s.7 of
                 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
                               5 of 13                322-wp-2144-26 (J)


             iii) C.R.No.286 of 2025 dated 02.12.2025, U/s.4(25)
                  of the Arms Act and U/s.37(1)/135 of MPA.



7.        The first incident pertains to C.R.No.160 of 2025 was

dated 13.07.2025, in which, the Petitioner had assaulted the

complainant in that case with a sharp weapon. He was arrested on

14.07.2025 and was granted bail on 22.07.2025.


           In the second offence i.e. C.R.No.250 of 2025, the

incident was dated 24.10.2025, in which, the Petitioner had

threatened the witnesses and the people in the locality. He was

arrested on 11.11.2025 and was granted bail on 21.11.2025.


           The third offence vide C.R.No.286 of 2025 was

registered on the basis of information received by the police that

the Petitioner and others were having iron koyta in violation of

law. It was recovered at the instance of co-accused Hamza Shaikh.

The Petitioner was arrested on 02.12.2025 and his bail application

was pending when the Detention order was passed on 06.12.2025.


8.        Paragraph-6 refers to two ‘in-camera’ statements of the

witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’. The statement of the witness ‘A’ was recorded
                               6 of 13                322-wp-2144-26 (J)


on 13.11.2025 in respect of the incident dated 08.11.2025. The

Petitioner had forcefully taken out Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- from

the pocket of the Witness’s shirt by showing a sharp iron weapon.

The statement of witness ‘B’ was recorded on 15.11.2025 in

respect of the incident dated 01.11.2025. Again by showing a

knife, the Petitioner had taken out Rs.1200/- from this witness’s

shirt pocket.


9.        Paragraph-7 mentions that from those facts, the

Respondent No.1 was subjectively satisfied that the Petitioner was

a ‘Dangerous Person’ as defined U/s.2(b-1) of the MPDA Act.


10.       In paragraph-8 it is mentioned that the Respondent No.1

had relied upon the material mentioned in paragraphs-5.1, 5.2,

5.3, 6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention to arrive at his

subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was a ‘Dangerous Person’

as defined U/s.2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and his criminal activities

were prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It was also

mentioned that, his bail application was pending in connection

with C.R.No.286 of 2025 registered with Samarth Police Station,
                               7 of 13                 322-wp-2144-26 (J)


but in future he was likely to be granted bail under the ordinary

laws of land as the said offence was not compulsorily punishable

with death sentence.


SUBMISSIONS MADE BY MR. ASHRAF SHAIKH, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

11.       Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

averments in paragraph-2 show that the Respondent No.1 has

relied on the Petitioner’s past activities and registered offences to

arrive at his subjective satisfaction that he was a ‘dangerous

person’ as defined U/s.2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, and that his

activities were prejudicial to maintenance of public order as

defined U/s.2(a)(iv) of the MPDA Act. However, that particular

averment is directly contrary to the averment made in paragraph-8

of the grounds of detention, where, he has based his similar

subjective satisfaction on the three registered offences mentioned

in paragraph-5 and two ‘in-camera’ statements. These are two

contrary stands and that has affected the Petitioner’s right to make

earliest effective representation. He further submitted that the

preventive action under section 129(e)(g) of the BNSS was still in
                                8 of 13                  322-wp-2144-26 (J)


operation as a bond executed on 25.11.2024 was in subsistence for

the period of two years, therefore, the normal laws of land were

sufficient to curtail his dangerous criminal activities. The police

could have taken recourse to take action for breach of bond

instead passing the Detention order and, therefore, taking the

drastic action of passing the preventive detention order was not

necessary. He submitted that the Detaining Authority had shown

awareness that the Petitioner’s bail application in respect of the

last offence was still pending. But it was mentioned that, there was

a possibility that he would be released on bail because that offence

was not compulsorily punishable with death sentence.


12.       Learned counsel submitted that a Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Aman Yusuf Pathan @ Khan Versus

Commissioner of Police and ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No.1722

of 2024, vide the order dated 06.08.2024 has dealt with this issue

and has held that, merely by saying that the offence was not

compulsorily punishable with death sentence and, therefore, he is

likely to be released on bail in future is not sufficient. He relied on

the Judgment of another Division Bench in the case of Aman
                                9 of 13                 322-wp-2144-26 (J)


Shakir Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. passed in

Criminal Writ Petition No.6037 of 2024 dated 21.02.2025 for

similar observations.


SUBMISSIONS MADE BY MR. S. V. GAVAND, LEARNED APP FOR
THE STATE

13.       Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the

Respondent No.1 clearly mentioned in paragraph-8 that he was

relying only on last three registered offences and two ‘in-camera’

statements to pass the Detention order. He submitted that, it was

the Authority’s subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was likely

to be released on bail because that offence was not compulsorily

punishable with death sentence and, therefore, no fault can be

founded with such observation. He submitted that the preventive

actions proved to be insufficient and, therefore, the Detention

order had to be passed.


REASONS AND CONCLUSION


14.       We have considered these submissions. As rightly

submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, paragraph-2 of

the grounds of detention takes a contrary stand with that
                                10 of 13                322-wp-2144-26 (J)


mentioned in paragraph-8 of the grounds of detention. In

paragraph-2, it is mentioned that the Petitioner and his

accomplices moved, armed with deadly weapons such as iron pipe,

wooden stick, koyta and did not hesitate to use the same while

committing the offences such as attempt to murder, grievous hurt,

extortion by putting the person in fear of death, hurt, riot and

possessing illegal arms etc. In the same paragraph it is mentioned

that the Petitioner had been habitually committing property and

body offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the IPC, under

chapters VI and XVII of the BNS, as well as, under Chapter V of the

Arms Act, and, the Petitioner was ‘thus’, a “Dangerous Person”

(emphasis supplied), as defined U/s.2(b-1) of the said Act, and his

criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public

order. This particular averment is clearly the subjective satisfaction

of the Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner was a ‘dangerous

person’ and his criminal activities were prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. These past activities were reflected in

three registered offences i.e. C.R.No.42 of 2022, C.R.No.188 of

2022 and C.R.No.95 of 2023.
                               11 of 13               322-wp-2144-26 (J)


15.       Learned counsel for the Petitioner also rightly submitted

that paragraph-2 refers to the offence of attempt to commit

murder, however, in none of the offences either in the past or in

the offences mentioned in paragraph-5 there is an offence of

attempt to commit murder. Therefore, this is clear non application

of mind. Also the contrary stands reflected in paragraphs-2 and 8

of the grounds of detention have affected the petitioner’s right to

make earliest effective representation.


16.       Though, the Respondent No.1 has stated that the

preventive actions were shown only to highlight his desperate

tendencies to commit violent crime, the Chapter case No.45 of

2024 resulted in Petitioner’s executing a bond for two years on

25.11.2024. That bond was in operation when the Detention order

was passed. There is no reason as to why action U/s.141(1)(a)(b)

of the BNSS was not taken by the police authorities. The grounds

of Detention in English do not mention the date on which that

chapter case was withdrawn. However, in the grounds of detention

in Marathi, it was mentioned that the chapter case was withdrawn

on 21.11.2025. This is yet another discrepancy.
                                12 of 13               322-wp-2144-26 (J)


17.       As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner, the Judgments in the cases of Aman Yusuf Pathan @

Khan and Aman Shakir Shaikh are applicable to the facts of the

present case. In both these judgments, it was observed that, merely

by saying that since the offence was not compulsorily punishable

with death sentence, the Petitioner was likely to be released on

bail; was not sufficient. In the present case also, the Respondent

No.1 has based his subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was

likely to be released on bail only on the assumption that the

offence was not compulsorily punishable with death sentence. It is

not based on cogent material relating to that investigation.

Therefore, as the benefit was given in both the above cases, the

same benefit will have to be given to the Petitioner in the present

case, as well.


18.       As a result of the above discussion, the impugned

Detention order is not sustainable and is required to be set aside.


19.       Hence, the following order:
                               13 of 13               322-wp-2144-26 (J)


                                          ORDER


           i)   The Detention order dated 06.12.2025 passed by
                the Respondent No.1 directing the detention of
                the Petitioner is set aside.

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

           iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

           iv) The Petition is disposed of.




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