Detention under public safety laws requires strong evidentiary support, without which subjective satisfaction for detaining individuals cannot stand.

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 Prohibition Act, 1949 and Crime No. 49 of 2025 under Section 65(f) of the said Act. Both registered with Ambajogai (Rural) Police Station, out of total nine crimes and one preventive action under Section 93 of the Prohibition Act. He further points out that, in the preventive action, a final bond of Rs.25,000/- has already been taken from the petitioner. He submits that respondent No. 2 has erroneously relied upon the statements of secret witnesses “A” and “B” to conclude that there was a disturbance to public order. According to him, those statements are stereotype and at the most, could reflect a breach of personal security, but do not amount to disturbance of public order. He specifically submits that though it is alleged that the petitioner is dealing in country-made liquor, no Chemical Analyzer’s reports in respect of the two crimes were placed before the Detaining Authority to substantiate that the petitioner was involved in the sale of illicit country liquor at the relevant time. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the alleged liquor was containing poisonous material to deter the public health. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on the following judgments.

A) Sandip Haridas Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in [2025(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.)130;

B) Armansingh Mansingh Tak vs. District Magistrate, Nagpur, reported in AIROnline 2024 BOM 1430 &

C) Criminal Writ Petition No.582 of 2025 ( Narayan Vasudev Ghumare vs. The District Magistrate, Beed and other delivered by this court [Coram : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ.) on 17/06/2025.

4. On the contrary, the learned APP strongly supported the detention order issued against the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is a “dangerous person” as defined under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short, “MPDA”). He submitted that the detention order under challenge is not based merely on the two offences and the statements of the secret witnesses, but on the overall activities of the petitioner, which demonstrate that he is regularly involved in the production of country-made liquor. Such activities, according to the learned APP, not only disturb public order but also adversely affect the health of the public at large. He further contended that there is no illegality in the procedure adopted while recording the in-camera statements of the secret witnesses and merely because the allegations in those statements are similar in nature, it only indicates that due to the terror created by the petitioner, people are hesitant to lodge complaints against him. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s activities do not affect publ