Unexplained 133-day delay from last prejudicial act snaps live link, vitiating preventive detention order. Solitary individualistic offence affects law and order, not public order justifying detention.

JUDGMENT :

ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner takes exception to the detention order and committal order dated 20.08.2025 bearing No. D.O.2025/DC/MPDA/DET-03/CR-120, passed by the Respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in exercise of powers under Section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act , 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “MPDA Act”) as well as the confirmation order dated 26.09.2025 bearing No. MPDA-0825/CR-471/Spl-3B, passed by the Respondent No.1-State Government in exercise of powers under Section 12 (1) of the MPDA Act. By the impugned detention order, the petitioner has been directed to be detained for a period of 12 months on the ground that the petitioner is a “dangerous person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act holding his activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

4. The impugned detention order is based on the proposal submitted by the Police Inspector, Police Station, Karmad dated 30.07.2025. The proposal has been routed through the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sub Division Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Rural and Superintendent of Police, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Rural and eventually placed before Respondent No.3-District Magistrate on 14.08.2025, who claims to have arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in manner prejudicial to public order. It is pertinent to note that, the basis for submission of proposal for detention of petitioner is registration of seven (7) past criminal cases and one (1) chapter case against the petitioner, the details of which are summarized as follows:

However, the impugned order of detention is based only on a solitary offence details of which are as follows :-

In addition to above one crime, two in-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ are also made basis for passing of the impugned detention order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, according to learned counsel for the petitioner the proposal for preventive detention was forwarded on 30.07.2025 on the basis of a solitary offence registered on 09.04.2025. However, the order of detention has been passed on 20.08.2025, after an unexplained and inordinate delay of 133 days from the date of last prejudicial act of the petitioner. Such delay clearly demonstrates that the requisite live link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the necessity for preventive detention had been severed, particularly when the in-camera statements of confidential witnesses “A” and “B” were purported to have been recorded on 28.07.2025 and 29.07.2025 respectively.

6. The second limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, so far as offence bearing Crime No. 144/2025 registered on 09.04.2025 is concerned, it is individualistic in nature. She thus submit that, even taking the allegations of FIR in the said crime as it is, the same would not amount to an act prejudicial to the public order but at the most it could be said to be an act affecting the law and order. She therefore submit that, on the basis of this solitary crime, the o