Preventive detention requires acts that threaten public order to justify detention; unexplained delays in issuing detention orders render them invalid.

JUDGMENT :

RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.

1. Petitioner, the mother of the Detenue, by present Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to quash and set aside the Detention Order, bearing No. OW. No. CRIME PCB/DET/KALEPADAL/SHAIKH/384/2025, dated 5^th May 2025, issued by the Respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner of Police, Pune City (Detaining Authority) under Section 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The Petitioner, further prays that the Detenue being detained in the Wardha Prison be released and set at liberty.

2. By Order dated 22^nd July 2025, this Court had issued Notice to the Respondents. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed their Affidavits in reply and opposed the Petition.

3. We have heard Ms. Misbaah Solkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondents. Perused the record and the Affidavits in Reply filed by the Respondent Authorities.

4. At the outset, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that though the Petitioner has raised various grounds in the Petition for challenging the Detention Order dated 5^th May 2025, she is restricting her arguments only to grounds 6(B) and 6(E) i.e. (i) activities of the detenue are not prejudicial to maintenance of public order and (ii) delay in issuing the Detention Order dated 5^th May 2025, in as much as the last in-camera witness statement of witness ‘B’ was recorded on 7^th February 2025.

4.1 Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Detaining Authority has for the purposes of passing the Detention Order relied upon one C.R. and two in-camera statements. The C.R. in question being C.R. No.6 of 2025 pertains to an incident of 26^th January 2025, registered with the Kalepadal Police Station on 11^th February 2025 under Sections 309 (6), 352, 351(1), 3(5) of BNS and under Section 4 and 25 of Arms Act and under Section 3 , 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Detention Order also relies on the in-camera statement of witness ‘A’ relating to an incident of 3^rd February 2025 recorded on 25^th February 2025 and in-camera statement of witness ‘B’ relating to an incident of 7^th February 2025 recorded on 27^th February 2025. That, a perusal of the said C.R. and the two in-camera statements does not indicate that the ‘public order’ was disturbed or that the acts of the detenue led to public disorder.

4.2 Learned Advocate for the Petitioner further submits that, the sole CR No.6 of 2025 is registered on 11^th of February 2025 and the detenue was arrested on the same date. That, the two in-camera statements of witness statement of ‘A’ and ‘B’ were recorded on 25^th February 2025 and 27^th February 2025 respectively and the Detention Order is dated 5^th May 2025. That, the period between 27^th February 2025 and 5^th May 2025 i.e the period between the recording of the last in-camera statement and passing the Detention Order is not explained. That, there is delay of more than two months for which the Detaining Authority has offered no explanation. That, on these two grounds the Detention Order is vitiated and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent-State in reply, while referring to in-camera statements of witness ‘A’ and witness ‘B’ submits that, perusal of the two in-camera statements clearly indicates that the conduct of the detenue is prejudicial