2025:BHC-AS:42966-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3107 OF 2025

Rupesh Laxman Gaikwad

R/o. In-front of T.M.C.

School No. 55, Azad Nagar,

Thane, Dist. Thane

(At present Nashik Road

Central Prison, Nashik) … Petitioner

V/s.

1) Commissioner of Police,

Thane.

2) The State of Maharashtra

(Through the Secretary Home Department (Spl) Mantralaya,

Mumbai.

3) The Superintendent,

Nashik Central Prison,

Nashik. … Respondents

______________________

Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut for Petitioner.

Smt. Madhavi H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

______________________

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2025

JUDGMENT (Per : A.S. Gadkari, J.) :-

1) Petitioner, detenue, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Detention Order dated 15^th April 2024, bearing No.TC/PD/DO/MPDA/09/2024 passed by Respondent No.1 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 (Maha.Act No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-2015) (for short ‘MPDA Act’) and the Committal Order of even date, directing his detention in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.

2) Heard Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs. Mhatre, learned A.P.P. for Respondents. Perused entire record produced before us and the Affidavits in reply filed by the Respondent-Authorities.

3) Petitioner has assailed the Order of Detention dated 15^th April 2024, predominantly on the ground that, there is a delay of about one year in executing the Detention Order. The Order of Detention was passed by Respondent No.1 on 15^th April 2024 and the Petitioner was arrested and the said Order was executed on him on 9^th April 2025. A specific ground to that effect has been taken at Sr. No. (d) in the clause of Grounds in the Petition.

4) Perusal of record indicates that, taking into consideration the criminal acts committed by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 came to the conclusion that, the Petitioner is a ‘dangerous person’ as contemplated under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act. After perusing the Report submitted by the sponsoring Authority i.e. the concerned Police Station, the Respondent No.1 reached to a conclusion that, the activities of the Petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and with a view to prevent him from acting in such a manner, it was necessary to make an Order directing the Petitioner be detained, passed an Order under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. It is needless to mention that, the said Order was passed after the Respondent No.1 reached to its subjective satisfaction that, such an Order is necessary for maintenance of public order in the concerned area of the prejudicial activities of the Petitioner.

5) It is an admitted fact on record that, the impugned Detention Order was passed by Respondent No.1 on 15^th April 2024, the Petitioner was thereafter arrested on 9^th April 2025 and the Detention Order was served and executed on him on same day and he was detained in Nashik Road Central Prison, in furtherance thereof. It is thus apparent that, there is a delay of about one year in executing the impugned Detention Order.

6) Shri Sandip Dhande, the Officer of the sponsoring Authority, in paragraph No.4 of his Affidavit dated 22^nd July 2025, has admitted the fact of execution of the Detention Order on Petitioner on 9^th April 2025. Perusal of record indicates that, no reasonable and satisfactory explanation is offered by any of the Authorities for the said delay in execution of the Detention Order.

7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.A. Abdul Rahman v/s. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1990 SC 225, in paragraphs Nos.11 and 12 has held as under:

“11. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus: The question