Bombay High Court

ASLAM MEHMOOD QURESHIversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE JALNA AND OTHERS

Disposal: RULE ABSOLUTE

Holding

The detention order is invalid and is quashed because the unexplained inordinate delay broke the live‑link required for preventive detention under the MPDA.

Summary

The petitioner, Aslam Mehmood Qureshi, was detained for twelve months under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA) on the ground that he was a “dangerous person”. The detention order was issued on 27 January 2026, six months after the last offences (registered on 1 September 2025) and after a delay of over four months in processing confidential witness statements. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the unexplained delay broke the required live‑link between his alleged activities and the threat to public order, and that the detaining authority had not satisfactorily explained the delay. The Court held that the delay was inordinate, unexplained, and fatal to the subjective satisfaction required under Section 3(1) of the MPDA, rendering the order punitive rather than preventive. Consequently, the Court quashed both the detention and confirmation orders and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release. The judgment emphasized that preventive detention must be based on contemporaneous material and a clear, explained justification for any delay.

Issues considered

Whether the four‑and‑a‑half‑month delay between the last recorded offences and the issuance of the preventive detention order violates the requirements of the MPDA.
Whether the detaining authority satisfied the statutory requirement of subjective satisfaction under Section 3(1) of the MPDA.
Whether the grant of bail in the underlying criminal cases affects the validity of the preventive detention order.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 5(c), 9, 9(A)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 110(e)(g)
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 67
Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 — s. 5(c), 9, 9(A)
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 119, 135
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities, 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), 2(b-1), 3(1)

Subjects

preventive detention
delay
subjective satisfaction
MPDA
dangerous person
quash
bail
live link
public order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43438-DB

615.2026WP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 615 OF 2026

Aslam Mehmood Qureshi
Age : 45 Years, Occ. : Labour,
R/o. Mangal Bazar, Jalna,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna ...PETITIONER

~VERSUS~

1. District Magistrate, Jalna,
District Jalna.

2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Maharashtra, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

3. The Jail Superintendent,
Central Prison, Harsool,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________
• Adv. Satej S. Jadhav for the Petitioner
• Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
__________________________________________________________

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

RESERVED ON : AUGUST 28, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026

J U D G M E N T : [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.

sga Page 1 of 12
615.2026WP

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the

detention order dated 27.01.2026 bearing No. 2026/RB-

Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA/WS-10, passed by Respondent No. 1-

District Magistrate, Jalna, in exercise of the powers under

Section 3(1) 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 27.03.2026 bearing No.

MPDA-0226/CR-81/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 2-

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 “dangerous

person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA.

3. The record reflects registration of three (03)

criminal cases and one preventive action taken against the

petitioner. The reference chart showing the criminal record

of the petitioner is reproduced hereunder :

sga Page 2 of 12
615.2026WP

Sr. Police Date of Court Case
Crime No. Sections Present Status
No. Station Registration No. & Date
143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 294, RCC 398/2024
01 Sadar Bazaar 687/2023 336, 337 IPC; Arms Act 4, 25; 28/08/2023 dated Pending trial
Bombay Police Act 1951 Sec.135 17/05/2024
BNS Sec. 299, 3(5), 111, 325,
238, 291, 300, 302; Maharashtra
RCC 344/2025
Animal Preservation Act 1976
02 Sadar Bazaar 745/2025 01/09/2025 dated
Sec.5(c), 9, 9(A); Maharashtra Pending trial
04/11/2025
Police Act Sec.119; Arms Act
Sec.4/25; IT Act Sec.67
BNS Sec.3(5) with Sec.5(c), 9,
9(A); Maharashtra Animal
03 Sadar Bazaar 747/2025 01/09/2025 Under Police
Preservation Act 1976
Investigation
(Amendment 1995)

Preventive Action :
Sr.
Police Station Chapter Case No. & Section Date of Registration Present Status
No.
Final bond
01 Sadar Bazaar, Jalna 62/2023 Sec.110(e)(g) CrPC 01/12/2023
cancelled

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits

that:

1) The inordinate and unexplained delay in
passing the detention order after the alleged
prejudicial activities and recording of the in-
camera statements shows that there was no
pressing urgency or imminent threat warranting
the petitioner’s preventive detention.

2) The petitioner is released on bail in both the
crimes relied upon. Despite knowledge of this
fact, the detaining authority has neither
considered the bail orders nor examined the
sufficiency of the bail conditions; nor has it
sought cancellation of bail.

sga Page 3 of 12
615.2026WP

3) The in-camera statements of witnesses “A”
and “B” are stereotyped and vague. The
incidents narrated therein are individual in
nature and do not affect public order. At the
most, they may amount to a law and order
issue.

Learned advocate lastly submitted that the

detention order is liable to be quashed and set aside and

prayed for the release of the petitioner.

In support of his submissions, learned advocate

has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Aakash

alias Bhaiyya Sanjay Rokade Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 29

of 2026, dated 04.08.2026.

5. Per contra, learned APP while supporting the

impugned order submitted that:

1) The petitioner has committed serious
offences under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, Chapters VI, XIII, XV and XVII of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
"BNS,2023") and Chapter V of the Arms Act,
1959. His involvement in multiple offences has
spread terror in the jurisdiction of Sadar Bazar
Police Station, Jalna and adjoining areas.

sga Page 4 of 12
615.2026WP

2) The petitioner’s acts indicate deliberate
attempts to create communal hatred and hurt
religious sentiments. The offences are therefore
prejudicial to public order.

3) There is no delay in passing the detention
order. The proposal was processed through
proper channels in time, and all mandatory
requirements under the MPDA were completed
within the stipulated period.

4) The detaining authority was aware that the
petitioner was on bail in the relied-upon
offences. Bail was granted on the technical
ground that the forensic report was awaited.
Mere grant of bail does not negate the threat to
public order, nor does it bar the issuance of a
detention order.

5) The in-camera statements of witnesses “A”
and “B” narrate incidents involving threat and
violence at public places. They show that the
petitioner's activities have disrupted public
peace and order and caused fear and panic
among the citizens.

6) The detaining authority was subjectively
satisfied that the petitioner was likely to revert
to similar prejudicial activities. Such activities
could not have been curbed by other means,

sga Page 5 of 12
615.2026WP

such as externment, and therefore the
petitioner’s detention was necessary.

Learned APP lastly submitted that the detaining

authority has passed the detention order after applying its

mind to the entire record and recording the requisite

subjective satisfaction, and prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

In support of her submissions, learned APP has

placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Mr. Rehan

Qureshi s/o. Mohd. Vakil Qureshi Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 117

of 2024, dated 09.09.2024.

6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Satej S. Jadhav for

the petitioner and learned APP Ms. M.N. Ghanekar for the

respondents. With the assistance of the learned advocates,

we have perused the petition, the affidavit-in-reply,

citations and the record.

7. The detaining authority, while passing the

impugned detention order, has mainly relied upon two

offences, i.e., C.R. No.745/2025 registered on 01.09.2025

under Sections 299, 111, 325, 238, 291, 300, 302 read

with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 5(c), 9, 9(A) of
sga Page 6 of 12
615.2026WP

the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, Section

119 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 4/25 of

the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 67 of the

Information Technology Act, 2000 and C.R. No. 747/2025

registered on 01.09.2025 under Sections 5(c), 9, 9(A) of the

Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 read with

Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, both registered with Sadar

Bazar Police Station, Jalna, along with two in-camera

statements of confidential witnesses "A" and "B", to declare

the petitioner a “Dangerous Person”.

8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has, in the

grounds of the petition as well as while arguing the

petition, taken a number of grounds to challenge the

detention order. However, we are not adverting to the other

grounds, as the petition should succeed on the sole ground

of inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which

has resulted in the snapping of the live-link. Both the

crimes considered for passing the detention order were

registered on 01.09.2025. The confidential statement of

witness "A" was recorded on 25.09.2025, and the statement

of witness "B" was recorded on 26.09.2025. The Sub-

Divisional Police Officer verified the statements of witnesses

sga Page 7 of 12
615.2026WP

"A" and "B" on 30.09.2025 and 01.10.2025 respectively.

After completion of the confidential inquiry, on 12.12.2025,

the Police Inspector of Police Station Sadar Bazar, Dist.

Jalna, submitted the proposal to the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Jalna and the Superintendent of Police, Jalna. Thereafter,

the Superintendent of Police, Jalna forwarded the said

proposal to the Detaining Authority on 09.01.2026 and the

Detaining Authority passed the detention order on

27.01.2026. As the last offences considered were registered

on 01.09.2025 and the detention order was passed on

27.01.2026, i.e., after a delay of 4 1/2 months from the last

crimes, there is an absence of any live link between the

material considered by the Detaining Authority as being

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the

subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority

that the activities of the petitioner were indeed prejudicial

to the maintenance of public order. Moreover, the said delay

is unexplained.

9. If the affidavit-in-reply of the Detaining

Authority is perused, in paragraph 7, the dates from the

recording of confidential statements of the witnesses till the

passing of the detention order are given, and in paragraph

sga Page 8 of 12
615.2026WP

14, it is mentioned that "with reference to ground no.(VI) of

the petition, the deponent submits that there is no delay in

passing the detention order. Deponent further submits that

the time taken by the authorities have been detail explained

in para 7 and 8 of this affidavit." There is no sentence in the

affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay caused in

passing the detention order from the date of the last

registered crimes which are considered for passing the

detention order.

10. A profitable reference can be made to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.

Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and

another, reported in (1981) 4 SCC 647, wherein it is held

that, "delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after

an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for in

certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable.

What is required by law is that the delay must be

satisfactorily explained by the Detaining Authority."

11. Before passing the order of detention, the

Detaining Authority must keep in mind that the recording

of subjective satifaction by the Detaining Authority in an

sga Page 9 of 12
615.2026WP

order of preventive detention is a sine qua non for passing a

valid order of preventive detention. This Court is well aware

of the position of law that, while deciding the validity of an

order of preventive detention, this Court 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 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.

12. For these reasons, when this Court examines

the validity of an order of preventive detention under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has to examine

the decision making process. In the facts of the present

sga Page 10 of 12
615.2026WP

case, there is no explanation as to the delay from the date

of registration of the last considered crimes, i.e.,

01.09.2025, till the passing of detention order. The

statements of confidential witnesses were recorded on

25.09.2025 and 26.09.2025, and the detention order was

passed on 27.01.2026. The Detaining Authority has thus

failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in passing the

detention order. Therefore, the judgment in the case of

Hemlata Shah (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts

and circumstances of the present case.

13. In our view, there has been an inordinate delay

from the last crimes registered till the passing of the

detention order. The explanation furnished in the affidavit-

in-reply in paragraphs 7, 8 and 14 is not satisfactory and

plausible. In fact, no explanation is given in the affidavit-in-

reply as to the delay of 4 1/2 months caused in passing the

detention order from the date of the last registered crimes.

The delay caused in passing the detention order has

snapped the live link between the prejudicial activities of

the petitioner and the rationale of clamping the detention

order on the petitioner. As the live link has snapped, it can

be inferred that there was no ground as required for

sga Page 11 of 12
615.2026WP

detention under Section 3(1) of the MPDA as to the

subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. As a

result, 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.

14. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following

order :-

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.

(ii) The detention order dated 27.01.2026 bearing

No.2026/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA/WS-10, passed by

Respondent No. 1- District Magistrate, Jalna and the

confirmation order dated 27.03.2026 bearing No. MPDA-

0226/CR-81/Spl-3B, passed by Respondent No. 2- State

Government are hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Petitioner- Aslam Mehmood Qureshi 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

sga Page 12 of 12

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…