DEEPAK ROHIDAS LOHKAREversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR

                                                          1/9                  304-WP-6233-25.odt

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO.6233 OF 2025

                           Deepak Rohidas Lohkare                         .... Petitioner

                                         versus

                           Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors             .... Respondents
                                                        …....

                           •     Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut, Advocate for
                                 Petitioner.
                           •     Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State/Respondent.

                                                  CORAM     : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                              ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
                                                  DATE      : 06st AUGUST, 2026

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


                           1.            The Petitioner has challenged the 'Detention Order'

                                dated 01/09/2025 passed by Respondent No.1, Commissioner of

                                Police, Pune, under Section 3 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

MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
                                (for short ‘MPDA Act’).
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.08.11
14:53:20 +0530




                           2.            The Respondent No.1, by a separate committal order,
               Nesarikar
                               2/9                    304-WP-6233-25.odt

     directed that the Petitioner be detained at Kolhapur Central

     Prison, Kolhapur.



3.            Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the

     Petitioner and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for the State.



4.            The Petitioner was served with the grounds of

     detention along with the 'Detention Order'. The grounds of

     detention mention that the Respondent No.1 had considered the

     offence mentioned in Paragraph 5.1 and the ‘In-Camera’

     statements mentioned in Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 while issuing

     the 'Detention Order'.



5.            The main submission of the learned counsel for the

     Petitioner was that there was non-application of mind on the

     part of Respondent No.1, because the registered offence, i.e.,

     C.R. No.528 of 2025 under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra

     Prohibition Act, registered at Kondhwa Police Station, does not

     make out the said offence against the present Petitioner, even

     after taking into consideration the entire material filed with the
                               3/9                     304-WP-6233-25.odt

     charge-sheet. She further submitted that the two ‘In-Camera’

     statements refer to two incidents, but neither of these incidents

     or the activities mentioned therein fall within the definition of a

     ‘Bootlegger’ as defined under the MPDA Act.



6.            Mr. Gavand, learned APP, submitted that the Petitioner

     was continuously indulging in these activities and, therefore, the

     'Detention Order' was rightly passed by Respondent No.1.



7.            The Respondent No.1 has recorded his subjective

     satisfaction with reference to Paragraphs 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2. In

     Paragraph 8, he has stated that, from those facts, he was

     subjectively satisfied that the Petitioner was a ‘Bootlegger’ as

     defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act. These activities were

     causing and calculated to cause widespread danger to the life

     and health of the people within the jurisdiction of Kondhwa

     Police Station, Pune.



8.            In Paragraph 9, he has recorded the satisfaction that

     the Petitioner would again revert to similar activities which were
                               4/9                      304-WP-6233-25.odt

     prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and that the

     normal laws were not sufficient to curb his bootlegging

     activities. Therefore, it was necessary to prevent him from acting

     in such a prejudicial manner in future.


9.            The description of C.R. No.528 of 2025 registered at

     Kondhwa    Police   Station   is   given   in   Paragraph   5.   On

     07/07/2025, on prior information, the police team, along with

     the Panchas, went to the spot mentioned in the FIR. They found

     one person selling balloons of illicit country-made liquor in an

     open field in a tin shed near Shivneri Nagar, Kondhwa Khurd,

     Pune, and collecting money from the customers. The police staff

     and the Panch witnesses raided the place at 8:45 p.m. The seller

     of the illicit country-made liquor was taken into custody. His

     name was Deepak Koram. He informed the police that

     Madhukar Lohkare and the present Petitioner were the owners

     of the said illicit country-made liquor business. Deepak Koram

     was found in possession of illicit country-made liquor and cash

     amounting to Rs.2,340/-. On that basis, the FIR was registered.



10.           During the course of the investigation, the police
                            5/9                     304-WP-6233-25.odt

  served a notice under Section 35(3)(1) of the BNSS on the

  Petitioner on 09/07/2025. The charge-sheet contains the

  chemical analysis report stating that the sample contained 41%

  v/v ethyl alcohol in water. The Professor and Head of the

  Department of Pharmacy, Sassoon Hospital, submitted a report

  stating that the consumption of ethyl alcohol was harmful to the

  human body. The charge-sheet was submitted on 25/07/2025.

  The documents in the charge-sheet were supplied to the

  Petitioner along with the grounds of detention. As far as this

  offence is concerned, the charge-sheet contains the Panchnama

  and the statements of the police officers who had taken part in

  the raid. All these statements are similar and refer to the fact

  that Deepak Koram was caught selling liquor. From these

  documents, it is quite clear that the Petitioner was not present at

  the spot. Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act was

  mentioned in the charge-sheet.



11.        Section 65(e) provides that whoever, in contravention

  of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act or of any

  rule, regulation or order made or any licence, pass, permit, or
                               6/9                304-WP-6233-25.odt

  authorization granted thereunder; sells, buys, possesses, uses,

  keeps, or has in possession any intoxicant other than opium or

  hemp shall, on conviction, be punished for each such offence

  with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 2

  years but which may extend to 5 years, or with a fine which

  shall not be less than Rs.25,000/- but which may extend to

  Rs.50,000/-, or with both.



12.        In the present case, the documents show that the

  Petitioner was not found in possession of the illicit liquor. He

  was not even present at the spot. He is shown as an accused

  only on the basis of the statement given by the co-accused

  Deepak Koram. From the perusal of the charge-sheet, the

  ingredients of Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act

  are not made out against the Petitioner. There was no material

  to show that the Petitioner owned that business or abetted the

  crime in any manner. The Detaining Authority has not taken this

  aspect into consideration.



13.        As far as the two ‘In-Camera’ statements are concerned,
                            7/9                    304-WP-6233-25.odt

  they are described in Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2. In Paragraph 6.1,

  the incident is described by Witness 'A'. He has stated that on

  15/07/2025, in the morning, he was repairing his car. The

  Petitioner and his two accomplices came near him with an iron

  pipe and wooden sticks. They threatened Witness 'A' and told

  him that if the Petitioner found him shooting a video regarding

  his business, or if it was found that Witness 'A' was giving

  information to the police, the Petitioner would finish him. The

  Petitioner also threatened the people gathered there.



14.        Witness 'B', in his statement mentioned in Paragraph

  6.2, stated about the incident dated 19/07/2025. At that time,

  Witness 'B' saw the Petitioner and his two associates beating a

  person. The Petitioner was saying that he regularly beat people

  who gave information about his business to the police. The

  Petitioner threatened the people who were watching the

  incident. They ran away out of fear. Even Witness 'B' ran away

  from the spot.



15.        These are the nature of the incidents mentioned by
                             8/9                     304-WP-6233-25.odt

  Witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’. Those instances may attract the definition

  of a ‘Dangerous Person’ under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act,

  but the definition of a ‘Bootlegger’ is a separate definition given

  under the said Act, which reads as follows:


        “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;”


16.        Thus, causing threats or giving threats to witnesses

  does not attract the definition of a ‘Bootlegger’, though it may

  fall within the definition of a ‘Dangerous Person’ in a given case.

  In the present case, neither of these three activities referred to

  by the Detaining Authority attracts the definition of a bootlegger.

  Therefore, the detention order could not have been based on

  these three instances. As a result, the petition succeeds.
                           9/9                    304-WP-6233-25.odt

17.       Hence, the following order :


                            ORDER


          (i)    The Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer
                 Clause (b), which reads thus :


                 “The order of Detention bearing No.CRIME
                 PCB/DET/KONDHWA/LOHAKARE/724/2025
                 dated 01.09.2025 issued under Section 3 of
                 M.P.D.A. Act 1981 by the Respondent No.1 be
                 quashed and set aside and on quashing the same
                 the Petitioner be ordered for release forthwith.”


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


          (iii) The Petition is disposed of.




      (ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.)             (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)