While setting aside a detention order passed against a man under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, the Bombay High Court has held that if the detenu is a menace to society, as alleged, then the prosecution should seek cancellation of bail and/or move an appeal to the higher Court, but seeking shelter under the Preventive Detention Law is not the proper remedy.

The High Court was considering a Petition challenging the order of detention issued under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) by the respondent, Commissioner of Police, Solapur.

The Division Bench of Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar and Justice M.S. Karnik stated, “When the 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 indulgence in identical activities which is the very basis of the preventive detention order. The State is not without a remedy. In case the detenu is such a menace to the society as alleged then prosecution should seek cancellation of bail and/or move appeal to the higher Court. But definitely seeking shelter under the Preventive Detention Law is not the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Advocate Jayashree Tripathi represented the Petitioner, while APP S.N. Deshmukh represented the Respondent – State.

Factual Background

The Senior Inspector of Police submitted a proposal for the detention of petitioner - Haridas Shankar Gaikwad under the MPDA Act to the Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The Respondent – Commissioner of Police and the Detaining Authority carefully considered and scrutinised the material placed before it and were subjectively satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The detention order was issued against the detenu on April 14, 2025. The detention order was served on the detenu, and a report under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA Act was sent to the Government of Maharashtra. The State Government approved the order of detention and confirmed the said order.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the detention order, the Bench noted that the respondent Commissioner had relied upon in-camera statements of the witnesses from which he formed an opinion that the petitioner’s activities in relation to those incidents were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community (i.e supply of domestic L.P.G cylinder) which affected adversely the maintenance of public order.

It was further noticed that the Detaining Authority had not considered the efficacy of the conditions imposed by the jurisdictional Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail and entered any satisfaction, however subjective it was, as to the conditions not being sufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in such activities. “In the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is to be borne in mind that when a person is enlarged on bail by Competent Criminal Court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court”, it stated.

It was further noticed that the order of releasing the petitioner on bail was dated March 7, 2025, and there was nothing on record to indicate that after being enlarged on bail, the petitioner had indulged in any criminal activities or the prosecution had moved any application for cancellation of bail.

Thus, the Bench set aside the order of detention and quashed the same. “The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Haridas Shankar Gaikwad v. Commissioner of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:2133)

Click here to read/download Order




Bombay High CourtJustice MS Karnik

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.