Singular individualistic assault unrelated to public order cannot justify preventive detention under MPDA Act; in-camera statements from custody misused to bypass unchallenged bail; prior antecedents from executed detention irrelevant for subsequent order.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.

Subject-matter:-

The order of detention dated 13.10.2025, passed by respondent no.2 – Commissioner of Police, Solapur, detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlord's, Bootleggers, Drug-ofenders, Dangerous persons and video pirates Act, 1981 (“MPDA Act”, for short) is challenged by the petitioner by iling present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2.1. An action u/s 3(2) of the Act had always been questioned by the detenues to be in serious controversy with the fundamental right to Freedom of Personal Life and Liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

2.2. In order to test the legality of the impugned detention on the parameters of facts, applicability of the provisions under the Act and the context of freedom of personal life and liberty, we framed following points to discuss:-

i. Whether the antecedents considered for earlier fully executed detention, would form a material to be used for subsequent detention?

ii. Whether a singular incidence apparently of an individualistic assault occurred with intention to daunt a boy to discontinue a love relationship objected by family, would constitute an ofence against ‘public order’?

iii. Whether in camera statements obtained while the detenue was in custody for the individualistic assault could be used to exercise action u/s 3(2) of the Act, in stead of challenging the bail order?

iv. Without there being not a single incidence indicating an act against public order, after release on bail in the individualistic oice, the detaining authority is justiied in exercising the power u/s 3(2) of the Act?

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Considering the nature of petition, we have heard the parties for inal disposal of the petition. FACTS:-

4. Following are the antecedents of the petitioner:-

5. Below is the preventive action taken against the petitioner:-

5.1 On 07.07.2023, a detention order under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act was executed against the petitioner. Consequent to completion of the detention period for one year, the petitioner was released on 06.07.2024. Recently, on 11.09.2025, Crime No.660 of 2025 came to be registered at Foujdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur, against the petitioner for the ofences punishable under Sections 118 (1), 118(2), 115(2), 351(3), 352, 189, 190, 191(1) and 191(2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). The petitioner was arrested pursuant to the last ofence on 17.09.2025 and was released on bail on 22.09.2025.

5.2 On 13.10.2025, respondent no.2 satisied himself subjectively from the record placed before him that an action under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act was needful to be imposed against the petitioner, whose activities could be termed as a `dangerous person’ within the meaning of Section 2(B-1) of MPDA Act. As such, the petitioner was saddled with the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 and is detained accordingly under the provisions of the MPDA Act. Hence, this petition.

SUBMISSIONS :-

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner records following objections to counter the impugned order of detention:-

(i) The petitioner cannot be termed as a “dangerous person’ within the meaning of Section 2(B-1) of MPDA Act;

(ii) He would further submit that the impugned order speciically refers to registration of Crime No.660 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 at Faujdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur, as the reason for initiating action under the provisions of MPDA Act.

(iii) The petitioner was arrested in the Crime No.660 of 2025 and was released on bail.

(iv) The bail order is not challenged by the respondents/authorities so far.

(v) Previous ofences recorde