Bombay High Court
SAKSHAM BRIJESH SINGH @ DONversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The detention order is quashed and set aside because the detaining authority failed to supply documents relied upon, violating Article 22(5).
Summary
The petitioner, Saksham Brijesh Singh, was detained on 22 January 2026 by the Thane Police Commissioner under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The detention order cited numerous prior offences and preventive actions from 2023‑2025, but the petitioner was not furnished with copies of the documents relied upon. He challenged the order, arguing that the failure to supply such material violated his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court examined whether the pre‑amble paragraphs of the grounds of detention, which were relied upon to form subjective satisfaction, required the production of the underlying documents. Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India), the Court held that non‑supply of documents on which the detaining authority relied vitiates the detention. Consequently, the detention order was quashed and the petitioner was ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to furnish copies of documents relied upon in the grounds of detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution
- Whether paragraphs described as a pre‑amble but relied upon for subjective satisfaction must be disclosed to the detenue
- Whether a detention order under the MPDA Act is valid absent such disclosure
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 4
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 107
- Constitution of India — s. Article 22(5)
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 — s. 2(b-1), 3(3), 8(1)
Subjects
- preventive detention
- Article 22(5)
- MPDA Act
- grounds of detention
- right to representation
- quashing of detention order
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.08.29
19:05:59
+0530 1/17 911 WP.3065.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3065 OF 2026
Saksham Brijesh Singh @ Don,
Age: 22 years, Occ.: Nil R/a. Omkar
Rahiwashi Chawl, Beside Sant
Rohidas Temple, Ambika Nagar -2,
Wagle Estate, Thane .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Additional Chief
Secretary, (Home), Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2. Ashutosh Dumbare,
Commissioner of Police, Thane
3. Senior Police Inspector, Wagle
Estate Police Station, Thane
4. The Superintendent, Yerwada
Central Prison, Pune
5. The Chief Secretary
of Advisory Board Constituted
under section 9 of the MPDA Act,
C/o. Desk Officer, Desk – 10, Home
Department, (Special) Mantralaya)
Mumbai .. Respondents
…
Mr. Dadhichi Mhaispurkar a/w Mr. Rushikesh Kale and Mr.
Suraj Gadkari, for the Petitioner.
Ms Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State.
…
Rushikesh
2/17 911 WP.3065.2026
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026
Judgment [Per Ashish S. Chavan, J.]:-
1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of detention
dated 22.01.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2, i.e. the
Police Commissioner of Thane. Along with the detention
order, committal order was also passed on the same day
committing the detenue to Yerwada Central Jail, Pune with
direction to be detained therein.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Dadhichi Mhaispurkar
representing the Petitioner and the learned APP, Ms
Sangeeta Shinde, representing the State.
3. Along with the detention order, the petitioner was
served with the grounds of detention. The grounds of
detention are important since they afford an opportunity to
the detenue to make representation effectively at the
earliest as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner made submissions on the
basis of the various grounds taken and materials relied
upon by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention
furnished to the Petitioner. The grounds of detention run
into eighteen paragraphs.
Rushikesh
3/17 911 WP.3065.2026
4. Paragraph 1 is in respect of the authority of
Respondent No. 2 to pass the detention order in terms of
the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous
Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons
Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act,
1981, herein after referred to as “the said Act”.
5. Paragraph 2 sets out the observation of the Detaining
Authority that the Petitioner has unleashed a reign of terror
in the areas of Wagle Estate Police Station in Thane
Commissionerate. Paragraph 3 sets out the category of
offences viz. Hurt, extortion, attempt to commit murder,
disruption of government work and other offences
punishable under IPC, BNS, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police
Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act, and pertinently
notes that the action of detention taken against the
detenue is relied on offences falling under Section 309(4),
126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS r/w Section 4, 25 of the
Arms Act. The Detaining Authority also notes the activities
of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order peace and tranquility in the localities referred to
herein above in the Thane Commissionerate.
6. Immediately, thereafter the Detaining Authority has
set out ten offences which lists the antecedents of the
Petitioner for offences during the years 2023-2025 as
under:
Rushikesh
4/17 911 WP.3065.2026
(i) C.R. No. 220 of 2023, dated 29.09.2023, under
Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 34 of IPC, registered by
Wagle Estate Police Station.
(ii) C.R. No. 270 of 2023, dated 25.11.2023, under
Sections 386, 34 of IPC, registered by Wagle Estate
Police Station.
(iii) C.R. No.450 of 2024, dated 24.03.2024, under
Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
(iv) C.R. No. 458 of 2024, dated 25.03.2024, under
Sections 307, 323, 504, 34 of the IPC r/w Sections 4, 25
of the Arms Act, r/w Sections 37(1), 135, 142 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, r/w Sections 3, 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered by Wagle
Estate Police Station.
(v) C.R. No. 928 of 2024, dated 31.08.2024, under
Section 142 of Maharashtra Police Act, registered by
Wagle Estate Police Station.
(vi) C.R. No. 969 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024, under
Sections 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, registered
by Wagle Estate Police Station.
(vii) C.R. No. 1280 of 2024, dated 29.12.2024, under
Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, registered
by Wagle Estate Police Station.
(viii) C.R. No.76 of 2025, dated 24.01.2025, under
Section 132 of the BNS r/w Section 142 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, registered by Wagle Estate
Police Station.
Rushikesh
5/17 911 WP.3065.2026
(ix) C.R. No. 146 of 2025, dated 23.02.2025, under
Section 132 of the BNS r/w Section 142 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, registered by Wagle Estate
Police Station.
(x) C.R. No. 246 of 2025, dated 14.04.2025, under
Section 132 of the BNS r/w Section 142 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, registered by Wagle Estate
Police Station.
7. The Detaining Authority has also enumerated the
preventive action taken against the Petitioner as under:
(i) Chapter Case No. 118 of 2023 dated 16.10.2023,
under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. This proposal for chapter
proceedings was cancelled on 20.12.2023 in order to
take more effective action against the Petitioner.
(2) Proposal No. 11 of 2023 dated 22.12.2023 under
Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act by
which the Petitioner was externed by DCP, Zone-V,
Wagle Estate from Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban,
Navi Mumbai and Thane for 18 months.
8. Paragraphs 4 and 5 set out one more offence against
the Petitioner, namely, CR. No. 655 of 2025 dated
25.10.2025 invoking offences punishable under Sections
309(4), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS r/w 4, 25 of the
Arms Act and two in-camera statements recorded on
24.12.2025 regarding incident dated December 2025 and
Rushikesh
6/17 911 WP.3065.2026
25.12.2025 regarding incident dated December 2025. The
gist of the allegations spelt out in CR No. 655 of 2025 are
also set out along with the narration of the in-camera
statements.
9. Paragraph 6 records the finding that the Petitioner is a
“Dangerous Person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of
the said Act. It also records that the subjective satisfaction
of the Detaining Authority that normal law of the land is
insufficient and ineffective to deter the Petitioner from
indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and that the criminal activities
of the Petitioner are disturbing the normal tempo of life of
citizens of the said localities and areas.
10. Paragraph 7 records the finding of the Detaining
Authority that preventive action taken against the
Petitioner has not prevented him from indulging in similar
activities and that criminal activities of the Petitioner are
likely to disturb public order in Wagle Estate Police Station
area in Thane City.
11. Paragraph 8 records the subjective satisfaction of
Detaining Authority to detain the Petitioner under the
provisions of the said Act with a view to prevent him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order.
12. Paragraphs 9 and 10 essentially reiterate the
Rushikesh
7/17 911 WP.3065.2026
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority recorded
in Paragraph No. 8.
13. Paragraph 11 sets out the communication of the
detention order to the detenue as required under Section
8(1) of the said Act r/w Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India. It also records the satisfaction that the facts given in
the statement and apprehension entertained by the
witnesses A and B are true and reasonable.
14. Paragraph 12 reiterates the subjective satisfaction of
the Detaining Authority on the basis of the contents of the
paragraphs Nos. 6 to 11 that the conduct of the Petitioner
is prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
15. Paragraph 13 records that all the relevant documents
which were considered by the Detaining Authority at the
time of passing the detention order are enclosed with the
grounds of detention and also informs the Petitioner of his
right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority
through the Superintendent of jail where he has been
detained, in case there is any fault in the documents
supplied to him.
16. By way of paragraph 14, the Detaining Authority has
informed the Petitioner that pending approval of the
detention order under Section 3(3) of the said Act, the
Petitioner would have a right to make representation to the
Detaining Authority.
Rushikesh
8/17 911 WP.3065.2026
17. Paragraphs 15 to 18 set out the various rights of the
Petitioner to make representation to the State Government
and Advisory Board against the detention order and the
timeline prescribed and the manner set out for the same.
18. The learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our
attention to ground 11(b) and 11(c) ventilated by him to
quash and set aside the order of detention. For the sake of
convenience, they are reproduced as under:
“b) That in para 3 of the grounds of detention the
Detaining Authority has made reference to the
earlier criminal cases registered against Petitioner
and preventive action taken in past. Thereafter the
Detaining Authority has stated that contents of
para 2 & 3 are preamble introduction to the
grounds of detention and the facts mentioned in
para 2 & 3 are not relied upon by the Detaining
Authority while forming his subjective satisfaction
to issue the present order of detention. However,
from perusal of the subjective satisfaction as
recorded by the Detaining Authority in para 6 and
7 of the grounds of detention, it is amply clear that
the Detaining Authority has referred to and relied
upon the preventive action taken against
Petitioner in past, yet the detenue was not
supplied with the copies of preventive action taken
against him in past. Therefore, this discloses non
application of mind on the part of detaining
authority, thereby, vitiated the subjective
satisfaction arrived at while issuing the detention
order.
c) The Detaining Authority ought to have supplied
Petitioner all the material referred and relied upon
by the Detaining Authority, while arriving at its
Rushikesh
9/17 911 WP.3065.2026
subjective satisfaction about preventive action
taken against Petitioner in past, which has
resulted in depriving Petitioner's right to make
effective representation at an earliest opportunity,
on this count alone the order of detention is liable
to be quashed and set aside.”
19. In response thereto, learned APP has invited our
attention to affidavit in response filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 2, more particularly, paragraph 9 therein,
which deals with ground 11(b) and 11(c), which are
reproduced as under:
“9. With reference to ground 11 (b) of the Petition,
it is denied that from perusal of the subjective
satisfaction as recorded by the Detaining Authority
in para 6 and 7 of the grounds of detention, it is
amply clear that the Detaining Authority has
referred to and relied upon the preventive action
taken against Petitioner in past, yet the detenu was
not supplied with the copies of preventive action
taken against him in past. It is further denied that
this discloses non application of mind on the part of
detaining authority, thereby, vitiated the subjective
satisfaction arrived at while issuing the detention
order.
It is submitted that preamble of the ground of
the detention shows previous criminal activities of
the detenu. The record shows that the detenu is
violent type of criminal and committed various
offences like Hurt, Extortion, Attempt to commit
murder, Disruption of government work, abusing,
threatening, robbery etc. for the sake of easy money
and has become perpetual danger to the life of
people residing and carrying out their daily vocation
in the locality.
The cases registered against detenu at age of
22 years i.e. 10 offences within 2 years and initiation
Rushikesh
10/17 911 WP.3065.2026
of the prevention action shows only history of the
detenu. This shows that the detenu has continued to
commit offences even after release on bail in earlier
offence and has no respect towards law as there is
no improvement in behaviour of the detenu.
In the para No. 3 of the grounds of the
detention, it is clearly mentioned that the para No. 2
and 3 are the preamble introduction to the grounds
of the detention and not relied upon by the
Detaining Authority for forming the subjective
satisfaction to issue the order of the Detention
against the detenu. Therefore, it is not necessary to
supply the copies of preventive action taken against
the detenu in past and thereby it does not disclosed
no application of mind on part of Detaining Authority
and does not vitiate conclusion arrived at while
issuing the Detention Order,
In the para No. 4 of the grounds of the
detention, the details of relied upon case i.e. C.R.
No. 655 of 2025 registered at Wagle Estate Police
Station and the 2 in-camera statements of witness
"A" and "B are given. The in-camera statements
were personally verified by the Divisional Asst.
Commissioner of Police, Wagle Estate Division,
Thane and thereafter I have recorded subjective
satisfaction that the detenu's conduct is prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. I say that, on the
basis of these material I was subjectively satisfied
that, the activities of the Detenu falls under Section
2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, wherein the Detenu falls
within the definition as "Dangerous Person" under
the said Act. I say that, considering the activities of
the Detenu and since I was subjectively satisfied, I
have issued the Detention Order on 22/01/2026
against the Detenu as a preventive measure. I have
recorded my subjective satisfactions at Para No. 6 to
11 of the grounds of detention is justified.
It is submitted that, twice Preventive actions
such as 107 of the Cr.P.C. and 56(1)(a)(b) of the
Rushikesh
11/17 911 WP.3065.2026
Maharashtra Police Act were initiated against the
Detenu under ordinary law, is mentioned in the
preamble of the grounds of detention at para No. 3
as past history. The record shows that the Chapter
proceedings under Section 107 of Cr. P.C. was
initiated against the detenu; however during the
proceedings the detenu committed one more
offence which was registered as C.R. No. 270 of
2023 at Wagle Estate, Police Station for the offence
under Section 386, 34 of IPC. Again the detenu was
externed from Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburb, Navi
Mumbai and Thane by order dated 05.03.2024 for
period of 18 months i.e. from 14.03.2024 to
13.09.2025. The chart annexed to the preamble of
grounds of detention shows that during the period of
externment, the detenu has entered the jurisdiction
of Wagle Estate, Police Station, District- Thane and
committed various offences.
It is submitted that, the Order of Detention
was issued on the basis of incidents mentioned in
Para No. 4(a), 5(a) and 5(b) of grounds of detention,
as I was satisfied that, the public order in the locality
mentioned in above relied upon offence and in the
statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' was disturbed
badly. I say that the statement of said in-camera
witnesses shows that the detenu extorted money
from witnesses and the action of the detenu also
adversely affected the general public at the spot. I
was also satisfied that, the criminal activities of the
Detenu could not be curbed under the normal law of
the land as the preventive action taken against the
Detenu found to be inadequate and ineffective.
Hence, after considering the incidents from various
angles and after looking to the involvement of the
Detenu. I as the Detaining Authority was
subjectively satisfied that, it was absolutely
necessary to detain him under the M.P.D.A. Act. It is
submitted that, from the past prejudicial activities of
a person a reasonable forecast about his future
activities can be reasonably made. I say that
Rushikesh
12/17 911 WP.3065.2026
considering the fact that, the people in the area
were afraid to come forward to give their complaints
or to help other victims out of the fear of the Detenu
and having regards to the facts and circumstances
of the case it is clear that, the people were living
under the constant shadow of fear whereby the even
tempo of the life of the people in the said area was
affected.
I was subjectively satisfied that, as he was a
free person he was likely to revert to similar criminal
activities which would be prejudicial to the
maintenance of Public Order in future and hence it
was necessary to detain and to prevent him from
acting in a similar manner in future. It is stated that,
since the action taken against the Detenu under the
normal law of the land is found to be inadequate and
ineffective to prevent the criminal activities of the
Detenu i.e. the criminal activities which are
prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order,
hence, I issued the Order of Detention against the
Detenu. It is stated that, in the past punitive action
was taken against the Detenu, however, the said
action was not sufficient to curb the criminal
activities of the Detenu, hence, to prevent the
Detenu from acting in similar prejudicial activities in
future, it was necessary to prevent by detaining him.
Hence it is denied that, I as the Detaining
Authority I have issued the order of detention
against the Detenu mechanically in a n a very casual
and cavalier manner and it is not true that, there is
non-application of mind on my part of being the
Detaining Authority. I further deny that, The order of
detention is not illegal and bad in law and not liable
to be revoked and set aside.
Thus there is no substance in the say of the
Detenu in this para.
10. With reference to ground 11 (c) of the Petition,
it is denied that the Detaining Authority while
Rushikesh
13/17 911 WP.3065.2026
arriving at its subjective satisfaction about
preventive action taken against Petitioner in past,
which has resulted in depriving Petitioner's right to
make effective representation at an earliest
opportunity, on this count alone the order of
detention is liable to be quashed and set set aside. It
is also denied that the Detaining Authority did not
provided the Petitioner original index in English
which was placed and relied upon by the Detaining
Authority and thereby detenu was deprived of right
to make representation at an earliest opportunity.
It is submitted that the Detaining Authority has
supplied the order of detention along with the
compilation of document to the detenu on
23/01/2026 while executing of the detention order.
The signature of the detenu taken on each page
provided to him. The said order of the detention was
also explained to the detenu in the language known
to him. The statement of the detenu shows that he
knows Marathi language and he studied upto 10 th
Standard from English Medium School. The
Detaining Authority while passing order of detention
has relied upon C.R. No. 655/2025 u/s 309(4),
126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S. Act, r/w.
section 4, 25 of the Arms Act on 25/10/2025 at
Wagle Estate Police Station and 2 in-camera
statements of witnesses "A" and "B" is personally
verified by Divisional Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Wagle Estate Division, Thane. The Detaining
Authority has merely referred the past offences and
preventive action and not relied upon the past
offences and the Preventive action taken against the
detenu in the past. I say that in para 13 to 18 of the
grounds of detention the detenu was informed all his
right more particularly the detenu was told in para
13 that upon communication made with me all
required documents shall be furnished to him,
however, no such request was made. The detenu
was also informed that he has right to make the
representation to the State Government against the
Rushikesh
14/17 911 WP.3065.2026
Detention order and that he shall be afforded the
earliest opportunity to make such Representation.
The detenu has submitted the Representation dated
11/04/2026 to the State Government. Therefore, it is
incorrect to state that the detenu was deprived of
right to make effective Representation at an earliest
opportunity and thereby the order of detention is
liable to be quashed and set aside.”
20. In the context of the specific challenge to the
detention order, at the outset, it is settled position of law
that when some documents are referred to or relied on the
grounds of detention, the copies thereof necessarily have
to be furnished to the detenue. Failure to furnish such
copies which are relied upon by the Detaining Authority and
have formed the basis of order of detention would deprive
the detenue of an opportunity to make an effective
representation to the Detaining Authority and this infirmity
would certainly amount to violation of the fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The copies of all documents which constituted the grounds
of detention and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority have to be supplied to the detenue and non-
supply of the same would also amount to depriving the
detenue of his personal liberty without following the due
process of law. The fallout of such non-supply of ‘relied
upon documents’ would necessarily vitiate the detention
itself. This position of law has been distilled and settled by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, the
latest being the judgment in the matter of Jaseela Shaji
Rushikesh
15/17 911 WP.3065.2026
Vs. Union of India & Ors1 wherein it is observed thus:
“36… it has been held that when a
detention order is passed all the material
relied upon by the detaining authority in
making such a order must be supplied to
the detenue to enable him to make an
effective representation. This court held
that this is required in order to comply
with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution, irrespective of whether the
detenue had knowledge of such material
or not.
37. It is thus a settled position that
though it may not be necessary to furnish
copies of each and every document to
which a casual or passing reference has
been made, it is imperative that every
such document which has been relied
upon by the detaining authority and
which affects the right of the detenue to
make an effective representation under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution has to be
supplied to the detenue.”
21. In the light of the aforesaid position of law, the
question that arises for consideration before us is whether
the Detaining Authority has supplied the documents and
relevant materials of the cases which are relied upon by it
to arrive at the subjective satisfaction of detaining the
Petitioner under the provisions of the said Act.
1 (2024) 9 SCC 53
Rushikesh
16/17 911 WP.3065.2026
22. In this context, it would be germane to revisit
paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, penultimate
paragraph of which is reproduced for the sake of
convenience as under:
“The paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 are the preamble
introduction to the grounds of detention and the said
facts mentioned in paragraph No. 2 and 3 are not
only relied upon by me while forming my
subjective satisfaction to issue the present order of
detention against you.”
23. A plain reading of paragraph 3 of the grounds of
detention as set out herein above clearly indicate that the
Detaining Authority has relied upon the prior antecedents
of cases registered against the Petitioner from 2023 to
2025 and the preventive action taken against the
Petitioner. The reply of the Detaining Authority makes it
further evident that since the paragraph Nos. 2 and 3
mention that they are preamble introduction to the grounds
of detention, hence the Detaining Authority did not feel it
necessary to supply the copies of the documents pertaining
to the cases reflected in paragraph 3 including the
preventive action against the Petitioner. The use of the
words “not only relied upon” clearly mean that
paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 are relied upon by the Detaining
Authority to form the subjective satisfaction to issue the
order of detention. In other words, the antecedents of the
Petitioner as reflected in paragraph 3 have been relied
upon and considered by the Detaining Authority. As seen
Rushikesh
17/17 911 WP.3065.2026
from the reply, the Detaining Authority has admitted that
no documents pertaining to the aforesaid antecedents have
been supplied/furnished to the Petitioner.
24. In the light of the aforesaid discussion it is evident
that the Detaining Authority has failed to supply documents
which have been relied upon by him to issue the order of
preventive detention against the Petitioner and this
infirmity has deprived the Petitioner of an opportunity to
make effective representation before the Detaining
Authority. Consequently, it amounts to a violation of
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India.
In these circumstances, the order of detention passed
by Respondent No. 2 dated 22.01.2026 bearing No.
TC/PD/DO/MPDA/02/2026 is quashed and set aside and the
Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other
case.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Rushikesh
Checking your session…