Back
Love Affair Brawl Doesn't Threaten : Bombay HC Frees Detainee, Slams Overreach
In a sharp rebuke to preventive detention practices, the 's Kolhapur bench—Justices R.G. Avachat and Ajit B. Kadethankar—quashed an order detaining Aditya Shailendra Mane under the . On , the court ruled that a single assault to derail a family-disapproved romance was a purely personal feud, not a menace to , freeing Mane from .
From Petty Crimes to Prior Lockup: Mane's Rocky Path
Aditya Mane, a 23-year-old labourer from Solapur, had a string of minor offences from , including thefts and riots under predecessors. Authorities slapped preventive measures twice: an externment in (later revoked) and a full-year detention under from .
Post-release, trouble brewed on . Yash Landge, in a relationship with Gayatri Kamble (sister of Mane's friend Samarth), ignored family warnings. After Yash visited Gayatri's home, Samarth enlisted Mane and others to thrash him at a local mutt, aiming to end the affair. Yash filed Crime No. 660/2025 at under . Mane was arrested , bailed —unchallenged by police.
Just three weeks later, on , Solapur's Police Commissioner deemed Mane a "dangerous person" under , citing this crime and two in-camera witness statements recorded while Mane was still in custody.
Petitioner's Plea: "Private Fight, Not Public Peril"
Mane's counsel, with , argued the detention was a shortcut to keep him jailed despite bail. Key points:
- The assault was individualistic , born of family objections to a romance—not affecting .
- No post-bail offences; prior crimes predated the 2023-2024 detention.
- In-camera statements (from witnesses "A" and "B") were stereotypical, recorded pre-bail ( ), unreliable, and unrelated to public disorder.
- Lacked true ; detention bypassed challenging bail.
State's Defense: Antecedents Spell Danger
countered fiercely, highlighting Mane's criminal history, prior detentions, FIR details, and witness statements alleging assaults on canteens and bystanders in August-September 2025. He insisted the material justified labeling Mane a threat to , with no procedural flaws.
Drawing the Line: or Just a Personal Vendetta?
The bench dissected the core issue: Could one post-release offence trigger MPDA detention? Echoing precedents, they distinguished (handled by regular criminal law) from (warranting drastic preventive steps).
In
Omkar alias Tedya Umesh Satpute v. State of Maharashtra
(2025), the court clarified:
"A quarrel between two individuals... will be termed as a personal or individualistic attack which will affect those individuals... but will surely not disturb public peace."
in
Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar
(1974) warned:
"Stray... crimes of theft and assault are not matters of
... Every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder."
Another Bombay ruling, Vaibhav @ Swapnil Balasaheb Shelke v. State (2024), flagged vague in-camera statements and missing " " to threats.
Here, the love-triangle beating was
"purely of individualistic nature... solely to discourage the said relationship."
In-camera tales of vague assaults lacked dates, credibility, and post-bail links. No bail challenge or fresh crimes sealed the misuse:
"The provision u/s 3(2) of the Act cannot be used as a tool to keep a person consistently behind bar."
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
"There is difference between an act against ‘law & Order’ and ‘’. The incidence in Crime No. 660 of 2025 is purely of individualistic nature."
"The in-camera statements were obtained even before he could be physically released on bail... authorities had not challenged the petitioner’s bail order nor any application for cancellation of bail has been preferred."
"A singular incidence of private assault or individualistic offence could not be used as ground to hold a person ‘dangerous person’ within the meaning of the Act."
"Detention is not an unfettered right of the detaining authority."
Freedom Restored: Quashed Order, Broader Warning
The writ petition succeeded:
"The impugned order dated
... is quashed and set aside; The Petitioner be released from detention forthwith if not required in any other offence."
This ruling reinforces safeguards, curbing MPDA overreach. As news reports noted, it deprecates detaining via untested statements while ignoring bail— a practice "consistently deprecated" by the court. Future cases may scrutinize "live links" to more rigorously, sparing petty feuds from preventive chains.
