JUDGMENT :

(Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Valse for the petitioner and learned APP Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar for the respondents –State.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

3. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 21.11.2024 bearing No.2024/MAG/MPDA/Desk-2/WS-480 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 29.11.2024 and the confirmation order dated 10.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1, by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the impugned orders and the material which was supplied to the petitioner by the detaining authority after passing of the order. He submits that though several offences were registered against the petitioner, yet for the purpose of passing the impugned order, only one offence was considered i.e. Crime No.357 of 2024 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. Learned Advocate appearing for the petition