The validity of a detention order can be upheld even when the detainee is in custody, provided the Detaining Authority shows a likelihood of future harmful conduct upon release on bail.

JUDGMENT :

RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.

1. By the present Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the Detention Order, bearing OW. No.CRIME/PCB/DET/YERWADA/SHERIKAR/320/2025, dated 16^th April 2025 (the Detention Order), passed by the Respondent No.2 issued 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 Petitioner who has been detained in the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Central Prison be released.

2. By Order dated 18^th September 2025, this Court granted time to the Respondents to file their Affidavits in Reply. The Respondents have filed their respective Affidavits in Reply dealing with the contentions/grounds raised by the Petitioner and opposed the Petition.

3. We have heard Mr. Amit Mane, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent–State. Perused the record and the Affidavits in Reply.

4. At the outset, it would be important to mention the fact that, though the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has raised various grounds in paragraph No.5 (i) to 5 (xii) of the Petition for challenging the Detention Order dated 16^th April 2025, however, learned Advocate submits that he is restricting his argument only to grounds (ii), (iv) and (vi) of the Petition.

4.1. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, when the Detention Order dated 16^th April 2025 was passed, the Petitioner was already in custody in connection with CR No. 59 of 2025, registered with the Yerwada Police Station and therefore there was no possibility or any chance that he would cause or that his activities would be prejudicial to the public order. That being in custody, passing of the Detention Order by the Authority did not serve any purpose.

4.2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner would further submit that, the Detaining Authority ought to have taken into consideration the grounds on which the Petitioner was released on bail in the Crime No. 56 of 2025, on which reliance has been placed by the Detaining Authority for arriving at its subjective satisfaction. That, the Detaining Authority has not considered the ground on which the Petitioner has been released on bail and, therefore, the subjective satisfaction is vitiated.

4.3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, when the Detention Order dated 16^th April 2025 was passed, the Petitioner was in custody in connection with CR No.59 of 2025 registered on 23^rd January 2025 with the Yerwada Police Station. That, the Detaining Authority in the grounds of Detention has only stated that the Petitioner will secure bail considering that the offence is not punishable with death and apart from this there is no other reason given. The Detaining Authority has not referred to nor has stated the material on which the Detaining Authority had “reason to believe” that there is an immediate likelihood or prospect of the Petitioner being released on bail and that he would commit similar activities or that the same will cause prejudice to public order.

4.4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner in support of his argument referred to and relied upon the following Judgments :

4.4.1. Judgment and Order in the case of Joyi Kitty Joseph V. Union of India & Ors. reported in [2025] 3 S.C.R.419 to submit that when bail is granted by the Court on certain conditions, the Detaining Authority ought to have examine whether the said conditions were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities, on which basis the preventive detention is ordered. He submitted that, if the Detention Order is silent, on this aspect this Hon’ble Court ought to interfere and set aside the Order of Detention.

4.4.2. Judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Balasaheb Thorat Versus Commission