Preventive detention quashed for detaining authority's failure to consider bail conditions' efficacy, reliance on vague unverified witness statements, invalid Arms Act basis absent Section 4 notification, and lack of nexus to public order over mere law and order issues.

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 is taking an exception to the detention order and committal order dated 08.08.2025 bearing No.2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-48, passed by Respondent No.1-District Magistrate, Nanded 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 17.09.2025, passed by Respondent No.3-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 has been passed on the proposal submitted by the Police Inspector, Police Station Shivajinagar, Nanded. The proposal has been routed through the Superintendent of Police and eventually placed before Respondent No.1-District Magistrate who claims to have arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s detention is necessary to prevent him from acting any manner prejudicial to public order. It is pertinent to note that, though the basis for submission of proposal for detention of petitioner is registration of nine (9) past criminal cases against the petitioner as well as Chapter Case No. 13 of 2025 under Section 129 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) dated 01.05.2025 registered with Itwara Police Station, Chapter Case No. 04 of 2023 under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) dated 04.03.2023 and Chapter Case No. 201 of 2023 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C dated 08.09.2023 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, however the impugned order of detention is based only on recent two offences bearing Crime No.593 of 2025 registered on 22.06.2025 and Crime No. 690 of 2025 registered on 19.07.2025 both under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act with Nanded Rural Police Station. In addition to above two crimes, 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 at the outset submits that, although the impugned detention order refers to release of petitioner on bail in pending cases, copies of bail application and the bail orders were admittedly neither placed on record nor has been considered by the Competent Authority, this lacks the basic principle of subjective satisfaction. To buttress his submission he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shaikh Mahebub @ Gorya Vs. The District Magistrate, Nanded and Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2062/2024) decided on 08.05.2025 (Aurangabad Bench), wherein it has been held that, when bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgenc