JUDGMENT :

(Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. J. Patil 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 18.07.2024 bearing No. Dandapra/KAVI/MPDA/27/28/2024 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 29.07.2024 and the confirmation order dated 11.09.2024 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, four offences were considered i.e. Crime No.41 of 2017 registered with Raver Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 324, 323, 504, 506, 279, 337, 338, 354 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Secti