SADDAM IRFAN ANSARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                            306-WP-590-2026.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.590 OF 2026

Saddam Irfan Ansari                                        ... Petitioner
      Vs.
The State of Maharashtra And Anr.                          ... Respondents

                                  ****
Ms. Nishi Singhvi i/b Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, for the Petitioner.
Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent-State.
                                  ****

                     CORAM :     SARANG V. KOTWAL AND
                                 RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
                     DATE    :   21st AUGUST 2026

JUDGMENT :           (Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)

1.        The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order dated 24 th

December 2025 passed by Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police,

Pune. Along with the Detention Order, the Respondent No.2, on the

same date, passed the Committal Order directing the detention of the

Petitioner in Amravati Central Prison.


2.        Heard Ms. Singhvi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.

Yagnik, learned APP for the Respondent-State.


3.        The Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention along

with the Detention Order. Paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention

refers to his past activities. It is stated that the Detaining Authority was

subjectively satisfied that the Petitioner is a “dangerous person” as



                                      1
Sharada
                                                          306-WP-590-2026.doc


defined under Section 2(b-1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of

Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (for short, “MPDA Act”). It is further

stated that his criminal activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order.


4.        Paragraph No.3.1 contains a list of four offences registered

against the Petitioner at Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune, during the

year 2024 and 2025. Paragraph No. 3.2 refers to three preventive

actions taken against him.


5.        Paragraph 3.1 refers to the offences registered at Loni Kalbhor

Police Station which are as follows:


(i)       CR No.73/2024 dated 31st January 2024, mainly under Section

324 of the Indian Penal Code.


(ii)      CR No.271/2024 dated 16th May 2024, mainly under Section 324

of the Indian Penal Code.


(iii)     CR No.271/2025 dated 15th June 2025 mainly under Section

4(25) of Arms Act.


(iv)      CR No.334 of 2025 dated 26 th July 2025 under Section 142 of

MPA.


Paragraph No.3.2 refers to a three preventive actions taken against him

in the past which are as follows:-




                                       2
Sharada
                                                            306-WP-590-2026.doc


(i)       Chapter Case No.131 of 2024 dated 8 th January 2024 initiated at

the instance of Loni Kalbhor Police Station under Section 107 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.


(ii)      Chapter Case No.62 of 2024 dated 5 th September 2024 initiated

at the instance of Loni Kalbhor Police Station under Section 56(1)(a)(b)

of the Maharashtra Police Act which is in the nature of externment.


(iii)     Chapter Case No. 124 of 2025, dated 18th September 2024,

initiated at the instance of Loni Kalbhor Police Station under Section

129(e)(g) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In the said

proceedings, the Petitioner had executed an interim bond of Rs.

1,00,000/-. However, the case was not taken to its logical conclusion, as

the Petitioner had committed one more offence during the pendency of

the proceedings, and the authority decided to take more effective

action.


6.        The grounds of detention, particularly Paragraph 8, clearly refer

to the averment of Respondent No.2 that he had relied upon the

material mentioned in Paragraphs 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2 to arrive at his

subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was a “dangerous person” as

defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and that his criminal

activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.


7.        Paragraph 5.1 refers to C.R. No. 453 of 2025, dated 8 th October



                                      3
Sharada
                                                            306-WP-590-2026.doc


2025, registered at Loni Kalbhor Police Station under Sections 118(1),

115(2), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, Sections 37(1) read with 135 of the

Maharashtra Police Act, and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment

Act. In this case, the allegations are      that on 8th October 2025 the

Petitioner and his associates assaulted one Ganesh Sadafule with the

blunt side of a sharp-edged weapon, under the suspicion that the said

Ganesh had provided information to the Police against the Petitioner

and his associates. The friends of Ganesh were also assaulted.


8.        Paragraph 6.1 refers to the in-camera statement of a witness “A”

regarding an incident dated 18th October 2025, in the nature of

extortion, wherein the Petitioner had taken Rs.700/- from the witness

by showing a Koyta.


9.        Paragraph 6.2 refers to the in-camera statement of Witness “B” in

respect of an incident dated 23 rd October 2025, wherein the Petitioner

had assaulted Witness B and had threatened the other people who were

gathered.


10.       Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent

No.2 had clearly recorded his subjective satisfaction in Paragraph 8,

wherein he had stated that he had arrived at such satisfaction based on

the material mentioned in Paragraphs 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2 referred to




                                      4
Sharada
                                                           306-WP-590-2026.doc


hereinabove. However, the said averment is contrary to his own

satisfaction recorded in Paragraph 2, wherein he has referred to the past

activities of the Petitioner and recorded his subjective satisfaction based

on those activities. She, therefore,       submitted that this contrary

conclusion has affected the Petitioner’s right to make earliest effective

representation against the Detention Order.


11.       Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of

detention are sufficiently stated in Paragraph 8, wherein the

Respondent No.2 has specifically clear that he has arrived at the

subjective satisfaction based on the material mentioned in Paragraphs

5.1, 6.1, and 6.2, i.e. one registered offence and the two in-camera

statements. Therefore, the Detention Order does not suffer from any

infirmity.


12.       We have considered these submissions. For passing any Detention

Order, it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to be satisfied that the

proposed detenue is a “dangerous person” and, secondly, that his

activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The

relevant provisions from the MPDA Act are as follows.


13.       Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act defines a dangerous person

which reads thus:-


          “2.   Definition



                                      5
Sharada
                                                                 306-WP-590-2026.doc


          (b-1) “dangerous person” means a person, who either by himself

          or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or

          attempts 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;


Section 2(a-iv) read thus:


“2.       Definitions

          (a)    “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of

          public order” means—


          (iv) in the case of a dangerous person, when he is engaged, or is

          making preparation for engaging, in any of his activities as a

          dangerous person, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect

          adversely, the maintenance of public order ;


14.       In this context, the satisfaction recorded in Paragraph 2 assumes

importance. In Paragraph 2, it was specifically mentioned that the

Petitioner was a weapon-wielding dangerous person of violent nature,

indulging in criminal activities that caused fear in the society. He and

his accomplices moved armed with deadly weapons and did not hesitate

to use violence, thereby causing terror, etc.


15.       It is further mentioned that the Petitioner has been habitually

committing offences against body and property punishable under the


                                          6
Sharada
                                                           306-WP-590-2026.doc


IPC, BNS, and Arms Act and is thus a habitual and dangerous person as

defined under Section 2(b-1) of the said Act, and that his criminal

activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This is a

clear subjective satisfaction recorded by Respondent No.2 based on his

past activities, which particularly refer to the offences under the IPC

committed in the year 2024. This is in direct contrast to his subjective

satisfaction in Paragraph 8 that he had relied only on C.R. No. 453 of

2025 of Loni Kalbhor Police Station and the two in-camera statements.

This has caused confusion and has affected the Petitioner’s right to

make earliest effective representation.


16.       Respondent No.2 has not given the necessary particulars in

respect of the offences registered in the year 2024 and 2025 referred to

hereinabove and the preventive actions taken. Thus, sufficient material

also has not been furnished to the Petitioner to enable him to make

effective representation. On both these counts, the continued detention

of the Petitioner cannot be permitted.


17.       The Detention Order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Hence

the following order:-


                                :: ORDER ::


(i)       The Detention Order bearing No.OW.NO /CRIME /PCB /DET/

LONIKALBHOR /ANSARI /1026 /2025 dated 24th December 2025



                                      7
Sharada
                                                            306-WP-590-2026.doc


passed by Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.


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

case.


(iii)     Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.




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




                                       8
Sharada