2026:BHC-AUG:3887-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1492 OF 2025 Chandrashekhar @ Chandya s/o Devrao Paikrao … PETITIONER VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

2. The District Magistrate, Office of District Collectorate, Near Gandhi Statue, Station Road Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded

3. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded

4. The Police Inspector, Police Station, Itwara, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded … RESPONDENTS …

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Pratiksha S. Magre APP for Respondents : Mr. N.B. Patil …

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &

ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

Date of reserved 13.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27.01.2026 JUDGMENT ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. By this writ petition the petitioner is taking exception to the detention order and committal order dated 01.07.2025 bearing No.2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-38, passed by the respondent No.2 – 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 (for short the MPDA Act), as well as approval order dated 11.07.2025 and confirmation order dated 29.08.2025 passed by 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.

3. The impugned detention order has been passed on a proposal submitted by the respondent No.4 – Police Inspector, Itwara Police Station, Nanded. The proposal has been routed through respondent No.3 – Superintendent of Police and eventually placed before the respondent No.2 – District Magistrate who claims to have arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The basis for passing the impugned detention order is registration of eight (8) past criminal cases against the petitioner and his associates. A Chapter Case No.504/2023 dated 13.10.2023 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C), registered in the year 2023 as well as another Chapter Case No.01/2024, dated 12.02.2024 under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Crime bearing No.191/2025 dated 17.05.2025, registered with Vimantal Police Station, Nanded under Sections 4 and 25 of Arms Act, as well as Sections 135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, registered in recent past. In addition to above crimes, two in- camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ are also made basis for passing the impugned detention order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of detention vitiates for more than one reason. According to learned counsel for the petitioner although the impugned detention order refers to release of petitioner on bail in pending cases, copies of bail applications and the bail orders were admittedly neither placed on record nor has been considered by the competent authority. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this lacks the basic principle of subjective satisfaction as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamilnadu through Secretary to Government and Anr.; (2011) 5 SCC 244 and Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur and Ors.; (2012) 7 SCC 181, so also the recent decision rendered by th