VISHAL BANDU RAUTversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS

                               1 of 7                  301-WP-6779.25.docm
 SKN

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6779 OF 2025

Vishal Bandu Raut.                               …     Petitioner.
      Versus
Commissioner of Police, Pune City
and others.                                      …     Respondents

                             __________

Ms.Jayashree Tripathi with Ms.Anjali Raut for the Petitioner.
Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent- State.
                           __________
                  CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                          RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

                  DATE     : 21st AUGUST 2026.

JUDGMENT (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.):-
1.      The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order bearing

No.CRIME/ PCB/ DET/ SINHGAD ROAD/ RAUT/ 778/ 2025 dated 24 th

September 2025 passed by Respondent No.1- Commissioner of Police,

Pune City. Along with Detention Order, the Committal Order was passed

and the Petitioner was directed to be detained in Kolhapur Prison at

Kolhapur. The Detention Order was passed under the Maharashtra

[Prevention of Dangerous Activities] Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act”).

2.      Heard Ms. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.

Mhatre, learned APP for the Respondent- State.
                                 2 of 7                     301-WP-6779.25.docm


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

consist of 15 paragraphs. Paragraph-2 mentioned that the Petitioner was

of a weapon-wielding dangerous recidivist of violent nature indulging in

criminal activities that foster terror in the society. The Petitioner and his

accomplices moved with deadly weapons and used them while

committing offences such as causing grievous hurt, criminal conspiracy,

riot etc. While being engaged in these violent criminal activities they

also threatened people not to complain to the Police about their

activities. Paragraph-2 further mentions that the Petitioner has been

habitually committing offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC),

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) as well as under Chapter-V of the

Arms Act and he was thus a dangerous person as defined under section

2 (b-1) of the MPDA Act and that the criminal activities were prejudicial

for the maintenance of public order. Para 3 refers to the following three

offences:-

       (i)   CR No.817/2023 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police

             Station dated 19th December 2023.

       (ii) CR No.95/2025 registered with Sinhgad Road Police

             Station dated 10th February 2025.

       (iii) CR No.28/2025 registered with Ambegaon Police Station

             dated 13th March 2025.
                                3 of 7                    301-WP-6779.25.docm


         Paragraph 3 further refers to a preventive action i.e. Chapter

Case No.14/2025 dated 18th April 2025 initiated at the instance of the

Ambegaon Police Station under section 129(e)(g) of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”). It is further

mentioned that to initiate more effective action, the case was

withdrawn on 12th September 2025 under section 137 of the BNSS by

the Special Executive Magistrate, Zone-II, Pune City. It is further

mentioned that there was no deterrent effect on the Petitioner in spite

of the previous preventive actions and hence it was evident that

previous preventive actions were insufficient to curtail his dangerous

criminal activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public

order.

4.       Paragraph-8 refers to the material mentioned in paragraphs

5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 and it further mentions that the Respondent No.1 had

relied only on that material to arrive at his subjective satisfaction that

the Petitioner was a dangerous person as defined in section 2(b-1) of

the MPDA Act and that his criminal activities were prejudicial to the

maintenance of the public order.

5.       Paragraph 5.1 refers to CR No.267/2025 registered with

Sinhgad Road Police Station under sections        118(2), 190, 189(2),

189(4), 191(3) and 3(5) of BNS, section 4(25) of the Arms Act and
                                4 of 7                    301-WP-6779.25.docm


section 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. It refers to the

incident dated 25th May 2025 wherein the Petitioner and his associates

had allegedly inflicted blows with iron sickle on the complaint’s left

hand. The Petitioner was granted bail on 16 th June 2025 in that

connection.

6.      Paragraph 6.1 refers to the statement of Witness “A” which was

recorded in-camera. This was in respect of incident dated 20 th June

2025. The allegations are in the nature of extortion. The Petitioner and

his associates had forcibly taken Rs.1900/- from the said witness.

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

in respect of incident dated 22 nd June 2025. Again the allegations are in

the nature of extortion and the Petitioner had taken Rs.1400/- from the

said witness.

8.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though in

paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has

mentioned that he had based his subjective satisfaction only on CR

No.267/2025 registered with Sinhgad Road Police Station and two in-

camera statements, his stand is contrary to the averments made in

paragraph-2 which refers to the past activities of the Petitioner and also

to the preventive actions and, therefore, this has created confusion

thereby affecting the Petitioner’s right to make the earliest effective
                                 5 of 7                     301-WP-6779.25.docm


representation. She submitted that the averment that the preventive

actions were insufficient is also not correct as the action was dropped

midway.

9.        Learned A.P.P, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioner’s

past history was mentioned only to show his criminal tendency, but the

Detention Order was based only on the aforementioned one registered

offence and two in-camera statements and there is no substance in the

stand taken by the Petitioner.

10.       We have considered these submissions. We find force in the

submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner. Paragraph-2

clearly refers to the Petitioner's past activities. It refers to the offences

under IPC committed much prior to registration of CR No.267/2025

with Sinhgad Road Police Station.         The Respondent No.1 has recorded

his subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was a dangerous person

and that his criminal activities were prejudicial for the maintenance of

public order; based on the past activities. This is important because the

Detention Order can be passed when two conditions are satisfied.

Firstly, the proposed detenu has to be a dangerous person as defined

under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and secondly, his activities must

necessarily affect the public order adversely.

11.       Section 2 (b-1) of the MPDA Act defines dangerous person as
                                    6 of 7                    301-WP-6779.25.docm


follows.

       “2. Definition

       (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;”

      Section 2(a)(iv) reads thus:
           “2. Definition
           In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
           (a)     “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
                   of public order” means—
           (I)     …...
           (ii)    …...
           (iii)   ….. .
           (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.;”
           Thus, both these definitions are important and unless both
these conditions are satisfied, the Detention Order cannot be passed. In
the present case, clearly the Respondent No.1 has based his subjective
satisfaction on the past activities. The particulars regarding his past
activities are not provided in the grounds of detention. Therefore, on
this count the Detention Order is unsustainable.
12.        Apart from that, the Respondent No.1 has referred to the

preventive action i.e. Chapter Case No.14/2025 initiated at the instance
                                  7 of 7                  301-WP-6779.25.docm


of Ambegaon Police Station and it was stated in the grounds of

detention that preventive actions were insufficient to curtail the

Petitioner’s dangerous criminal activities. However, the said paragraph

itself mentions that the preventive action was withdrawn on 12 th

September 2025. It was not taken to its logical end. Therefore, this

satisfaction that the preventive actions were insufficient to curb the

Petitioner’s activities is factually incorrect. Therefore, the final

subjective satisfaction is also vitiated.

13.      Considering all the above aspects, the Detention Order is liable

to be set aside. Hence the following order:

                                  ORDER
(i)     The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b)
(ii)    The Detention Order bearing No.CRIME/ PCB/
        DET/ SINHGAD ROAD/ RAUT/ 778/ 2025 dated
        24th September 2025 passed by Respondent No.1-
        Commissioner of Police, Pune City is quashed and
        set aside.
(iii)    The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required
        in any other case.
(iv)    Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.




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