The Bombay High Court has set aside a preventive detention order issued under the MPDA Act, holding that the alleged acts did not disturb public order and that an unexplained delay of over two months made the detention legally unsustainable.
A division bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale ordered the immediate release of the detenue, observing that preventive detention cannot be used casually when ordinary criminal law is sufficient.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh, a 39-year-old homemaker from Pune, seeking the release of her son who was detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981.
Read also:- Abuse and Character Assassination of Wife at Workplace Is Mental Cruelty, Rules Calcutta High Court
The detention order dated 5 May 2025 was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, relying on:
- One criminal case (C.R. No. 6 of 2025), and
- Two confidential (in-camera) witness statements.
The detenue was lodged in Wardha Central Prison following the order.
What the Police Alleged
According to the police, the detenue was involved in an incident on 26 January 2025, allegedly threatening people with a weapon and extorting money. Two in-camera witnesses claimed similar acts of intimidation in early February 2025.
The State argued that such conduct created fear in the locality and justified preventive detention to maintain public order.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Sets Aside Furlough Rejection, Says Long-Term Prisoner Not a ‘Habitual Offender’
Key Issues Before the Court
The defence narrowed its challenge to two core grounds:
- No disturbance of public order
- Unexplained delay of 67 days between the last witness statement and the detention order
The court examined whether the acts were serious enough to go beyond “law and order” and reach the threshold of “public order”.
Court’s Observations
After closely examining the material, the bench was unconvinced.
“The incidents relied upon appear to be individual-centric and not of such gravity that they disturb the even tempo of public life,” the court observed.
Read also:- Divorced Daughter Entitled to Family Pension: Calcutta High Court Backs CAT Order Against Centre
The judges noted that while the alleged acts may constitute criminal offences, they did not affect society at large or create widespread fear. The court reiterated the settled principle that every breach of law does not amount to a breach of public order.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench emphasised that preventive detention is a harsh measure and must be used sparingly.
Delay That Vitiated the Detention
The court found a 67-day gap between the last in-camera statement (27 February 2025) and the detention order (5 May 2025).
This delay, the bench said, remained largely unexplained.
“Routine and vague explanations cannot justify prolonged inaction when a person’s liberty is at stake,” the judges remarked.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears UP Government in Ayurvedic Nurse Appointment Row, Says Training Doesn’t Guarantee Job
Even after accounting for public holidays, the court found that a substantial portion of the delay had no justification, making the detention legally flawed.
Final Decision
Holding that both grounds were fatal to the detention order, the Bombay High Court ruled:
- The detention order dated 5 May 2025 is quashed and set aside
- The writ petition is allowed
- The detenue shall be released forthwith, unless required in any other case
The judgment brought the proceedings to a close, reinforcing that preventive detention cannot replace regular criminal law mechanisms.
Case Title:- Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh vs Commissioner of Police, Pune City & Ors.
Case Number:- Criminal Writ Petition No. 3471 of 2025
