Bombay High Court
RAJESH ALIAS BHOLA BANDU NATKARversusTHE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BEED AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- RULE ABSOLUTE
Holding
The detention order is invalid as it lacks the requisite subjective satisfaction and is punitive, and is therefore quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Natkar, was detained for twelve months under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act on the ground that he was a sand smuggler. The detention order relied on a single recent offence and two in‑camera statements of confidential witnesses, which the petitioner argued were vague, individual incidents and did not demonstrate a disturbance of public order. The respondents contended that the material was sufficient and cited the Harish Patil case to support the detention. The Court examined the statements, noted they were stereotyped and did not show a broader impact on the community, observed that a bond for good behaviour under the BNSS had not been cancelled, and found the detaining authority had not recorded the required subjective satisfaction. Consequently, the Court held the order to be punitive rather than preventive and quashed it, ordering the petitioner’s immediate release.
Issues considered
- Whether the detention order under the MPDA Act is valid in the absence of a live link between the alleged offence and a threat to public order.
- Whether the in‑camera statements of confidential witnesses establish a disturbance of public order sufficient for preventive detention.
- Whether the failure to cancel the bond under the BNSS before invoking preventive detention vitiates the required subjective satisfaction.
- Whether the precedent set in Harish Patil v. State of Maharashtra is applicable to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 129, 35(3)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 305(E)
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 — s. 12(1), 3(2)
Subjects
- preventive detention
- sand smuggling
- public order
- subjective satisfaction
- MPDA Act
- BNSS
- in‑camera statements
- bond for good behaviour
- quash
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45589-DB
322.26WP.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 322 OF 2026
Rajesh @ Bhola Bandu Natkar,
Age : 27 years, Occupation : Agril,
R/o. Rakshasbhuvan, Tq : Georai,
Dist : Beed.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The District Magistrate,
Beed.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Beed.
3. The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Secretary Home Department (Spl)
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Superintendent Aurangabad
Central Prison, Aurangabad.
... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. S.B.Solanke, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Govind A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent nos.1 to 4.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 9th September, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th September, 2026
1
322.26WP.odt
JUDGMENT [Per : Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.] :
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally at the admission stage with the consent of learned
advocates for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the
detention order dated 20.12.2025 bearing No. 2025/RB-
Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-27, passed by Respondent No. 1-
District Magistrate, Beed, in exercise of the powers under
Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders,
Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers,
Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential
Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human
Trafficker Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “MPDA”) and
the confirmation order dated 11.02.2026 bearing No.
MPDA-1225/CR-729/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 3-
State Government in exercise of the powers under Section
12(1) of the MPDA. By the impugned detention order, the
petitioner is directed to be detained for a period of 12
months on the ground that the petitioner is a “sand
2
322.26WP.odt
smuggler” within the meaning of Section 2 (e-2) of the
MPDA.
3. The impugned detention order is passed on a
proposal submitted by the Assistant Police Inspector,
Chaklamba Police Station, Dist.- Beed. The proposal has
been routed through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the
Sub-Division Georai, Dist.- Beed and the Superintendent of
Police, Beed, and eventually placed before the respondent
No.1 – District Magistrate, Beed, who claims to have arrived
at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s detention is
necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner
prejudicial to public order. The record reflects registration
of five (05) past criminal cases and one preventive action
taken against the petitioner. The reference chart showing
criminal record of the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder:-
Sr. Police Cri. No. Section Date of Present
No. Station Registration Status
01 Gondi, Dist. 248/2021 U/sec. 379, 34 IPC Pending
Jalna r.w. sec.48(7), (8) before Court
Mah. Land Revenue
Act
02 Chaklamba 42/2023 U/sec. 324, 323, 20.02.2023 Pending
504, 506, 34 IPC before Court
03 Chaklamba 208/ 2024 U/sec. 303(2) BNS, 25.07.2024 On
sec. 48(7), 48(8) Investigation
Mah. Land Revenue
Code
3
322.26WP.odt
04 Chaklamba 174/2025 U/sec. 303, 3(5) 18.05.2025 On
BNS Investigation
05 Chaklamba 361/2025 U/sec. 303(2), 16.10.2025 On
305(E) BNS Investigation
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits
that:
1) The last crime considered for passing the
detention order on 20.12.2025 was registered on
16.10.2025. The gap between the crime considered
and the detention order, snaps the live link and
demonstrates no imminent threat or pressing
urgency for taking action against the petitioner.
2) The detention order does not discuss the
petitioner’s arrest or bail status in the relied-upon
crime, which shows non-application of mind. The
record reveals that, a notice under Section 129 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short ‘BNSS, 2023’) was served on the petitioner,
directing him to furnish a bond for good behaviour
on 11.11.2025. This fact was not considered while
passing the detention order.
3) The in-camera statements of confidential
witnesses “A” and “B” are vague and stereotyped.
The incidents stated are against specific individuals
and do not establish that the petitioner's activities
disturbed public order. At the most, they may
amount to a breach of law and order.
4
322.26WP.odt
It is lastly submitted that as the detention order
is passed without proper application of mind and without
recording the requisite subjective satisfaction, the same is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
In support of his submissions, learned advocate
has placed reliance on the judgments in Keshav Madhav
Vaibhat Vs. District Magistrate, Jalna and Ors. reported
in 2026 LJ Soft (BOM) 1906, Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh Vs.
Commissioner of Police, Pune City and Ors. reported in
MANU/MH/9401/2025, Ameena Begum Vs. The State of
Telangana & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0966/2023,
Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur reported
in MANU/SC/0758/2010, Hasan Khan Ibne Haider Khan
v. R.H. Mendonca and Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/0183/2000 and Amanulla Khan Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in MANU/SC/0396/1999.
5. Per contra, learned APP while supporting the
impugned order submitted that:
1) There is no delay in passing the detention
order that would snap the live link. The proposal
5
322.26WP.odt
was processed through the appropriate channels in
a timely manner and was confirmed by the State
Government.
2) Though the petitioner was arrested and
released on bail, he has again indulged in ‘sand-
smuggling’ activities and committing offences.
3) The in-camera statements of confidential
witnesses are not vague. They specify the date,
time, and place of the incidents and were duly
verified by the authorities. They corroborate that
the petitioner’s criminal activities have generated
fear among residents within the jurisdiction of
Police Station, Chaklamba and adjoining areas,
preventing them from coming forward to report
against him.
Learned APP lastly submitted that the order of
detention was passed on proper application of mind and
subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s activities are
prejudicial to public order, based on his criminal record
and verified in-camera statements, and prayed for dismissal
of the petition.
In support of his submissions, learned APP has
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Harish
Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.; Criminal
6
322.26WP.odt
Writ Petition No. 1398 of 2016, dated 10.10.2016, to
submit that illegal sand mining activities have grave
consequences that affect public order and, therefore, the
detention order in the present case is sustainable.
6. Heard learned advocate Mr. S. B. Solanke for the
petitioner and learned APP Mr. G. A. Kulkarni for the
respondent-State. With the assistance of the learned
advocates, we have perused the petition, affidavit-in-reply,
original record and the citations relied upon by both the
sides.
7. Although five offences are registered against the
petitioner, while passing the impugned detention order, the
detaining authority has considered only one recent offence,
i.e., C.R. No. 361 of 2025 registered with Chaklamba Police
Station, Tal.- Georai, Dist.- Beed on 16.10.2025, under
Sections 303(2), 305(E) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short ‘BNS’), and two in-camera statements of
Confidential Witnesses 'A' and 'B' to declare the petitioner a
“Sand Smuggler”.
7
322.26WP.odt
8. In the present case, we have carefully perused
the in-camera statements of confidential witnesses ‘A’ and
‘B’.
Witness ‘A’ has stated that on 12.11.2025 at
10.00 am, while he was standing at Umapur Phata, the
petitioner came there, abused him and said, “why are you
giving information of my sand vehicles to police, due to it
police are affecting raid on me and registering the offences.”
When the witness denied giving any information about the
petitioner’s sand business to the police, the petitioner,
without listening to him, assaulted him by means of kick
and fist blows, removed a knife from his waist and placed it
on his neck.
The incident, as narrated, is essentially
individual in nature and was directed specifically against
the witness for his alleged act of passing on information to
the police about the petitioner’s sand business and
vehicles. The assault and threat were personal to the
witness and arose from a private grievance. There is no
material to show that the incident caused any disturbance
to the public at large.
8
322.26WP.odt
9. Witness ‘B’ has stated that on 17.11.2025 at
10.00 am, while he was standing in front of Shani Mandir,
the petitioner came there and asked him why he was not
coming for the work of filling his sand vehicle for Rs.300/-
per day in the Godavari river bed. The witness replied that
he had work elsewhere for Rs.500/- per day and, therefore,
could not come to fill the petitioner’s sand vehicles. He
further told the petitioner that he should close his illegal
sand business, as excavation of sand from the Godavari
river was reducing the sand level and could give rise to a
drought-like situation. On that, without listening to him,
the petitioner assaulted him.
The incident narrated is again personal in
nature and arose from the witness's refusal to work for the
petitioner and his advice to the petitioner to stop the illegal
sand business. The statement does not disclose any specific
act of the petitioner which caused disturbance to public
order. The incident is confined to the individual witness
and does not establish that the petitioner's activities had a
wide impact on the community at large.
9
322.26WP.odt
10. It is significant to note that both the confidential
witnesses have, in almost identical phraseology, stated that
on seeing the incident, persons fled away and shopkeepers
shut their shops and tapris. Such verbatim repetition
renders the statements stereotyped and mechanical. It
appears that the said sentence has been introduced in both
statements merely to create an impression that the
petitioner’s acts affected public order.
At this stage, it is necessary to bear in mind the
distinction between “law and order” and “public order”, as
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ameena Begum
Vs. The State of Telangana & Ors., reported in 2023
INSC 788. For an act to qualify as a disturbance to public
order, the specific activity must have an impact on the
broader community or the general public, evoking feelings
of fear, panic or insecurity. Not every case of a general
disturbance to public tranquillity affects public order.
The mere fact that shopkeepers shut their shop
shutters and persons fled from the spot does not establish
that the tempo of life of the community was disturbed. At
the most, it shows a temporary reaction to a law and order
situation arising from an individual incident. There is no
10
322.26WP.odt
material to show that the public at large was affected or
that the ordinary law was unable to deal with the situation.
The in-camera statements, therefore, do not furnish a valid
basis for preventive detention.
11. The record further reveals that in C.R. No. 174
of 2025, registered on 18.05.2025, a notice under Section
35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 was served upon the petitioner on
18.05.2025 itself. Only the said notice was issued and the
petitioner was not arrested. This indicates that the
authorities did not consider it necessary to arrest him.
Thereafter, C.R. No. 361 of 2025 came to be registered on
16.10.2025, which is the last crime considered by the
detaining authority while passing the impugned detention
order. In connection with the preceding activities of the
petitioner, Chapter Case No. 23 of 2025 was initiated
against him on 11.11.2025. In the said chapter case, the
petitioner was asked to execute a final bond for good
behaviour under Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023, and
accordingly, the petitioner executed the final bond for good
behaviour on 25.11.2025, that is, after registration of the
last crime considered, namely C.R. No. 361 of 2025. After
11
322.26WP.odt
execution of the said final bond, no offence was registered
against the petitioner.
12. The detention proceedings were initiated by the
sponsoring authority by recording the statements of
confidential witnesses on 25.11.2025 and 30.11.2025
respectively. It is, however, material to note that the
incidents narrated by the confidential witnesses are alleged
to have occurred on 12.11.2025 and 17.11.2025, that is,
prior to the execution of the final bond for good behaviour
by the petitioner on 25.11.2025. There was, therefore, no
justification for the detaining authority to initiate the
detention proceedings or pass the detention order without
first seeking cancellation of the bond secured from the
petitioner. If the situation was so imminent and pressing,
the authorities ought to have resorted to cancellation of the
bond rather than invoking the preventive detention
proceedings. No steps were taken for cancellation of the
bond. The non-consideration of this material fact vitiates
the subjective satisfaction and demonstrates non-
application of mind.
13. Moreover, along with the proposal, the
sponsoring authority had produced all the record and
12
322.26WP.odt
documents, including the papers relating to the initiation of
the chapter proceedings and the final bond obtained from
the petitioner. However, the detaining authority has not
taken the same into consideration while passing the
detention order, and there is no mention thereof in the
detention order.
14. The petitioner was served with a notice under
Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, which itself shows that the
authorities felt no necessity of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No. 361 of 2025, i.e., the last offence considered.
Despite this fact, it is simply stated in paragraph 8 of the
detention order that “it is also seen that after releasing on
bail you are involving in committing such type of offences,
therefore, it is necessary to detain you.” Similarly, in the
affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that “even after arrest and
release on bail, the petitioner reiterated his indulgence in
sand-smuggling activities and committing offences”. These
observations demonstrate the haphazard and mechanical
manner in which the detention order is passed.
15. We have carefully perused the judgment relied
on by the learned APP in Harish Patil (supra). This Court
in the said case, while upholding the detention order,
13
322.26WP.odt
observed in paragraph 36 that sand smuggling from river
banks affects the water table and water level, thereby
affecting the public in general and farmers in particular.
The Court also observed that sand smugglers create terror
in the vicinity and are a menace to public order.
16. We find that the said judgment is factually
distinguishable from the present case. In the said case,
there were specific allegations in the in-camera statements
that the detenu had threatened and assaulted villagers,
created a reign of terror, and prevented farmers from going
to their fields at night, causing them great loss. The Court
found that the activities of the detenu had affected not just
individuals but the residents of several villages, thereby
amounting to a disturbance of public order.
In the present case, the in-camera statements
do not disclose such grave allegations. The incidents
disclosed are of an individual nature and do not
demonstrate that the petitioner's activities had a wide-
ranging impact on the community at large, as was the case
in Harish Patil (supra).
14
322.26WP.odt
17. Moreover, the observations in paragraph 36 of
Harish Patil (supra) are, at best, obiter dicta and cannot
be treated as a ratio decidendi and thus, cannot be applied
to all cases of sand smuggling. The reliance placed by the
learned APP on the judgment is therefore misplaced. The
said judgment, being distinguishable on facts, does not
advance the case of the respondents.
18. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to restate
the settled legal position regarding preventive detention.
Before passing an order of detention, the detaining
authority must keep in mind that recording of subjective
satisfaction by the detaining authority in an order of
preventive detention is a sine qua non for passing a valid
order of preventive detention. This Court is conscious of
the position that, while deciding the validity of an order of
preventive detention, it cannot decide whether there was
adequacy of material before the detaining authority. This
Court can only examine whether there was material before
the detaining authority and whether the detaining
authority has recorded subjective satisfaction that the
grounds provided in the statute for passing an order of
detention exist. The order of preventive detention is an
15
322.26WP.odt
order of a very drastic nature. The result of passing an
order of preventive detention is to deprive the detenu of his
liberty without trial. Therefore, an order of preventive
detention cannot be passed in a casual manner. Passing of
an order of preventive detention involves careful application
of mind and recording of subjective satisfaction on the
basis of the material on record that the grounds of
detention provided by the statute exist.
19. From the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that
the impugned detention order suffers from several
infirmities. The detaining authority did not consider the
fact that the police authorities did not find it necessary to
arrest the petitioner in the crime considered i.e. C.R.No.
361 of 2025 and he was only served with a notice under
Section 35 (3) of the BNSS; though a final bond for good
behaviour under Section 129 of the BNSS was executed on
25.11.2025 and no offence was registered thereafter, the
authority neither considered nor sought cancellation of the
bond before resorting to preventive detention; the in-
camera statements narrate individual incidents and are
stereotyped and mechanical, and do not establish
disturbance to public order; the solitary recent crime and
16
322.26WP.odt
the said statements do not furnish sufficient material to
conclude that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to
maintenance of public order and that ordinary law was
incapable of dealing with the same; and the observation
that the petitioner continued illegal activities after release
on bail is unsupported by any cogent material. These
infirmities go to the root of the decision-making process
and vitiate the subjective satisfaction.
20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we
are of the considered opinion that the detention order has
ceased to be preventive, as it should be in law, and has
instead become punitive and must therefore be struck
down. The impugned detention order suffers from non-
application of mind and non-recording of the requisite
subjective satisfaction.
21. Hence, the following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 20.12.2025 bearing No.
2025/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA-27, passed by Respondent
No. 1-District Magistrate, Beed and confirmation order
17
322.26WP.odt
dated 11.02.2026 bearing No. MPDA-1225/CR-729/Spl-3B,
passed by Respondent No. 3-State Government are hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Petitioner- Rajesh @ Bhola Bandu Natkar shall be
released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
18
Checking your session…