IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2388 OF 2025 Omkar Rajendra Bhosle Age : 26 years, R/o. Shriram Apartments, Flat No.06, Near Rutunagari Society, Dhayri, Pune.

(At present Wardha District Prison, Wardha) … Petitioner V/s.

1. Commissioner of Police, Pune City.

2. The State of Maharashtra (Through Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.)

3. The Superintendent, Wardha Prison, Wardha. … Respondents ______________________

Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, a/w Anjali Raut, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Madhavi. H. Mhatre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

______________________

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND Digitally signed RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

by SANJAY SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR KASHINATH NANOSKAR D 20 a 2 te 5 : .10.15 RESERVED ON : 23^rd SEPTEMBER 2025

15:06:53 +0530 PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J] :-

1) The Petitioner, by the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the Detention Order, bearing No. O. W. No./CRIME PCB/DET/NANDED CITY/BHOSLE/157/2025, dated 03^rd March, 2025 (the Detention Order), issued 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 (MPDA Act). The Petitioner being detained seeks a direction for being released and set at liberty.

2) By Order dated 25^th April 2025, this Court issued Rule in the Petition. The Respondent No.1 to 3, have filed their respective Affidavit in replies dated 8^th June, 2025, 13^th June 2025 and 4^th July 2025 respectively, dealing with the contentions and grounds raised by the Petitioner and opposed the Petition.

3) Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Madhavi. H. Mhatre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent–State. Perused the record, the Affidavits in Reply and considered the Judgments cited and relied upon by the Advocates appearing for the parties.

4) At the outset, it would be important to make a mention of the fact that, though the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has raised various grounds paragraph No.4 (a) to 4 (k) in the Petition for challenging the Detention Order dated 3^rd March, 2025, however she has restricted her argument only to ground (j) at Page No.13 of the Petition i.e delay in recording the in-camera statements and in passing the Detention Order.

5) Whilst, agitating the said ground, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has only relied upon C. R. No. 622 of 2024 and two in- camera statements. The C.R. No. 622 of 2024 was registered on 1^st November 2024, the Petitioner was arrested on 7^th November, 2024 and granted bail on 13^th November 2024. The two in-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ are recorded on 15^th January, 2025 and 13^th January, 2025 respectively i.e 2 months after the Petitioner’s release on bail, on 13^th November, 2024. Further, the Detention Order came to be passed on 3^rd March, 2025 i.e. nearly after 45 days of recording statements, and 3 & ½ months after the Petitioner was released on bail. The Petitioner submits that, if the activities of the Petitioner were so dangerous and/or prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then the authorities ought to have taken prompt and immediate steps to initiate the present proceedings. The delay, in recording statements and passing the impugned Detention Order, indicates a very casual approach of the Respondents. Delay on both the counts is fatal to the case i.e. issuance of Detention Order.

6) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar V/s. S. Ramamurthi & Ors. reported in 1993 Supp (2) Su