USHA SANTOSH SAKATversusTHE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME) AND ORS.

                      Gokhale                            1 of 10               24-wp-3869-26


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3869 OF 2026

                     Usha Santosh Sakat                             ..Petitioner
                          Versus
                     The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) & Ors.   ..Respondents
                                                __________
                     Mr. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi for Petitioner.
                     Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State/Respondent.
                                                __________
                                     CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                 RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

                                         DATE    : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026

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

                     1.           Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of

                     the parties.


                     2.           The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order dated

                     30.06.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City under

                     the provisions of the Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous

                     Activities) Act, 1981 (for short ‘MPDA Act’).


                     3.           Heard Mr. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, learned counsel

                     for the Petitioner and Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the

                     State.
        Digitally
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2026.09.07
        13:48:30
        +0530
                                  2 of 10                 24-wp-3869-26


4.        Along with the Detention Order, Committal order was

passed on 30.06.2026 directing the petitioner to be detained in

Kolhapur Central Prison. The Petitioner was held to be a

‘Bootlegger’ U/s.2(b) of the MPDA Act as per the satisfaction of the

Respondent No.2.


5.        Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner is pregnant of four months and there is no further

necessity of her detention. She won’t be able to carry out her

normal activities, much less commit the offences as is considered

by the Authorities. He submitted that, on merits, the subjective

satisfaction is not proper. The Detention Order was not necessary.

The observation of the Detaining Authority that the normal laws of

land are not sufficient to curb her activities, is not correct. The

police have never taken any steps to arrest her in respect of her

activities and, therefore, it would be wrong to say that normal laws

of land are insufficient.


6.        Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the State

Government has restricted the period of detention to nine months
                                  3 of 10                 24-wp-3869-26


from 30.06.2026. She submitted that the Petitioner shall be given

all the care in respect of her pregnancy. She will be given all the

medical facilities and medicines as per Rules. She further

submitted that the Petitioner is repeatedly committing these

offences and, therefore, there was no option but to detain her

under the provisions of the MPDA Act.


7.        We have considered these submissions. The paragraph-

3.1 refers to eleven offences registered against the Petitioner from

the year 2023 to 2025. They were committed between the period

from 28.07.2023 to 18.02.2025. She was arrested only on one

occasion i.e. on 30.10.2023 in connection with C.R.No.362 of

2023. All these offences are registered at Sinhgad road police

station for commission of the offence punishable U/s.65(e) of the

Maharashtra Prohibition Act. On all the ten other occasions, the

Petitioner was served with a notice; either U/s.41(a)(1) of the

Cr.P.C. or U/s.35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (for short ‘BNSS 2023’). On none of these occasions the

Petitioner was ever arrested. Instead of that, the Respondent No.2

has taken a recourse to invoke the provisions of the MPDA Act to
                                 4 of 10                24-wp-3869-26


detain her.


8.        The paragraph-3.2 refers to three preventive actions

taken against the Petitioner. The first action was U/s.93 of the

Maharashtra Prohibition Act initiated at the instance of Sinhgad

Road police station vide Chapter Case No.1 of 2024 dated

19.05.2024. Pursuant to those proceedings, the Petitioner had

executed a bond of Rs.50,000/- on 05.06.2024 for good behaviour

for one year. But during that period, she had committed an offence

and, therefore, to initiate more effective action, the case was

withdrawn on 03.10.2024. Thereafter, the next preventive action

U/s.56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act was initiated at the

instance of Sinhgad Road police station and the Petitioner was

externed from the area of Pune Police Commissionerate for a

period of six months from 04.10.2024. After completion of that

period, another preventive action was taken against her at the

instance of Sinhgad Road police station vide Chapter Case No.47

of 2025. It was dated 15.04.2025. The Petitioner had executed a

bond of Rs.50000/- for good behaviour for two years on

31.05.2025. The period of that bond was still in operation. In the
                                   5 of 10                24-wp-3869-26


meantime, she committed the offence registered vide C.R.No.48 of

2026 at Sinhgad Road police station. Therefore, to initiate more

effective action, the case was withdrawn on 25.06.2026 U/s.137 of

BNSS 2023 and the Detention Order was passed on 30.06.2026.


9.        The averments and the grounds of Detention Order from

paragraph-5 made reference to C.R.No.48 of 2026 registered at

Sinhgad Road police station U/s.65(e) of the Maharashtra

Prohibition Act. It was registered on 05.02.2026. She was issued

Notice U/s.35(3) of the BNSS 2023. She was not arrested. The

offence pertains to the incident dated 05.02.2026. At about

2:30p.m., on a prior information, the Petitioner was apprehended

carrying plastic pouches containing illicit liquor. The samples were

sent for the chemical analysis. The samples contained 10%, 8%

and 10% v/v ethyl alcohol in water.


10.       Confidential enquiry was conducted and two ‘in-camera’

statements were recorded. Those statements are of Witness ‘A’ and

Witness ‘B’. The first Witness ‘A’ has given an information about the

incident dated 01.05.2026. At around 2:30p.m. this witness was
                                   6 of 10                  24-wp-3869-26


returning home and was walking in front of the Petitioner’s liquor

den. There was a small fight between this witness and a person

under the influence of liquor. The Petitioner came out and

threatened this witness. The Petitioner slapped the Witness ‘A’.


11.       The Witness ‘B’ informed about the incident dated

15.05.2026 at about 7:00p.m. The Petitioner and her accomplice

collided with this witness. The Petitioner was on a two wheeler.

The Petitioner then kicked and punched the witness. She took out

Rs.2000/- forcibly from this witness.


           Thus, based on one registered offence and these two

‘in-camera’ statements, the Detention Order was passed.


12.       The   Respondent     No.2     in   paragraph-4   specifically

mentioned that, he had considered the offence mentioned in

paragraph-5.1 and the confidential statements mentioned in

paragraph-6.1 and 6.2. Those are the two ‘in-camera’ statements

and the registered offence based on which the Detention Order

was passed. These three instances were the basis on which the

Detaining Authority has reached subjective satisfaction.
                                    7 of 10                  24-wp-3869-26


13.       As far as the ‘in-camera’ statements of the Witnesses ‘A’

and ‘B’ are concerned, they were in respect of the activities which

would attract the definition of ‘dangerous person’ and not the

definition of ‘bootlegger’ as defined U/s.2(b) of the said Act; which

reads as under:


         “2(b) “bootlegger” means a person, who distills,
         manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells
         or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other
         intoxicants in contravention of any provisions of the
         Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and orders
         made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being
         in force or who knowingly expends or applies any
         money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other
         conveyance or any receptacles or any other materials
         whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing any of
         the above mentioned things by or through any other
         person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of
         any such thing;”



            The definition of ‘dangerous person’ as defined

U/s.2(b-1) of the said Act; reads as under:


         “2(b-1) “dangerous person” means a person, who either
         by himself or as a member or leader of a gang,
         habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the
         commission of any of the offences punishable under
         Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or
         any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the
         Arms Act, 1959.”
                                    8 of 10                 24-wp-3869-26


14.         Therefore, reaching subjective satisfaction that she was a

‘bootlegger’ based on these two instances referred in the ‘in-

camera’ statements is not proper and shows non application of

mind.


15.         Learned APP submitted that, in such situation, Section

5A of the MPDA Act will be applicable and the Detention Order

can be based on recording subjective satisfaction on the registered

offence. However, in that case, the Petitioner was not even

arrested. Only a notice U/s.35(3) of the BNSS 2023 was served on

her. There are no allegations that, she had committed any breach

of that notice. In that case, the police had chosen not to arrest her.

We have taken this aspect into consideration in deciding this

petition.


16.         Apart from this, we find that the Detaining Authority has

referred to the preventive actions taken against the Petitioner in

the past. The last preventive action was the Chapter Case No.47 of

2025. It was U/s.129(g) of the BNSS 2023. The Petitioner had

executed a bond of Rs.50000/- for good behaviour for two years.
                                   9 of 10                 24-wp-3869-26


This bond was executed on 31.05.2025. Therefore, the period of

bond was up to 30.05.2027. During that period, according to the

police, she committed the offence vide C.R.No.48 of 2026

registered at Sinhgad police station. It is mentioned in the order

that to initiate more effective action, the case was withdrawn on

25.06.2026 U/s.137 of the BNSS 2023. Within four days thereof,

the impugned Detention Order was passed on 30.06.2026. The

Respondent No.2 has observed in paragraph-9 that, normal laws of

land were not sufficient to curb her bootlegging activities and,

therefore, it was necessary to detain her under the MPDA Act. This

observation is incorrect because the normal laws of land empowers

the police officers to cancel the bond executed by her U/s.129(g)

of the BNSS 2023 and take her into custody immediately. In this

context, Section 141(1)(b) of the BNSS 2023 is important; which

reads thus:


         “141(1)(b)- if any person after having executed a
         bond or bail bond for keeping the peace in pursuance
         of an order of a Magistrate under section 136, is
         proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his
         successor-in-office, to have committed breach of the
         bond or bail bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-
         office may, after recording the grounds of such proof,
         order that the person be arrested and detained in
                                      10 of 10                  24-wp-3869-26


           prison until the expiry of the period of the bond or bail
           bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any
           other punishment or forfeiture to which the said
           person may be liable in accordance with law.”


17.        The police did not refer to this power. They had not

arrested the Petitioner in connection with C.R.No.48 of 2026

registered at Sinhgad road police station. Therefore, it cannot be

said the normal laws of land were insufficient to curb her

activities. The subjective satisfaction reached in that behalf is not

correct. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned Detention

Order deserves to be set aside and the petition is required to be

allowed.

18.        Hence, the following order:

                                          ORDER

               i)   Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
                    (B).

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

               iii) The Petition is disposed of.



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