Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, Y. G. KHOBRAGADE
Ibbu Kashim @ Kasim Nuriwale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition allowed, orders quashed. (Para 1) |
| 2. detention based on insufficient grounds. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. need for subjective satisfaction and evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. insufficient evidence to justify detention order. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandipkumar C. More, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner, who is a bootlegger, has challenged the order No.2025/RB-Desk-1/POL-1/MPDA-12 dated 30/06/2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Beed, whereby he has been detained and also the approval order dated 09/07/2025 and the order dated 29/08/2025 passed by the Section Officer, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), on the ground that the said orders are arbitrary and have been issued without proper subjective satisfaction, by invoking powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel Mr. S. J. Salunke, appearing for the petitioner, submits that respondent No. 2 has considered only two offences .i.e. Crime No. 30 of 2025 under Section 65(f)(e) of the Maharashtra Prohi
Detention under public safety laws requires strong evidentiary support, without which subjective satisfaction for detaining individuals cannot stand.
Detention order confirmed - Habitually indulged in manufacture, transportation and sale of illicit liquor - Acts and conduct attributed to petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order o....
The court emphasized the importance of subjective satisfaction, expert opinion, and the adequacy of regular criminal laws in determining the validity of detention under the MPDA Act.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the acts of the detenu being prejudicial to the interest of the society and public order, is sufficient to justify the preventive det....
Manufacturing and selling illicit liquor is considered prejudicial to public order, justifying preventive detention under the A.P. Prohibition Act.
Detention orders must be based on relevant evidence and objective criteria; absence of chemical analysis reports and reliance on vague witness statements render such orders unsustainable.
Detention orders require strict compliance with legal standards, including a clear subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, which was not met in this case.
The judgment established the principle that preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1968 requires evidence showing that the detenue's acts are prejudicial to public order or ca....
Detention orders must rely on current and relevant material; reliance on stale offences and absence of crucial reports vitiates the order.
Minor typographical errors in translation and formulation of grounds of detention do not invalidate a detention order if the detaining authority has valid reasons to believe that the detainee's activ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
