The Bombay High Court on October 17, 2025, upheld the preventive detention of one Sanket alias Khoonkhar Dadya Nandu Toradmal under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981, rejecting a plea filed by his mother, Sangita Nandu Toradmal. The court ruled that the detention was justified to maintain public order, even though the accused was already in judicial custody at the time.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale pronounced the verdict, reserved on September 23, 2025.
Background
Toradmal, a 43-year-old resident of Bajrang Wadi in Nashik, had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging a detention order issued by the Nashik Commissioner of Police on November 11, 2024.
Her son had been booked in Crime No. 273 of 2024 at Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik, for assault and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Maharashtra Police Act. The detention followed reports from two in-camera witnesses who described him as a habitual offender creating fear and disruption in the locality.
The petitioner argued that the detention violated procedural safeguards and that her son’s right to make a fair representation was impaired since crucial documents, like the victim’s medical certificate, were not provided to him.
Justice Gadkari, delivering the judgment, systematically dismissed the petitioner’s three main arguments.
On the non-supply of detention grounds, the Bench held that while the order was served on November 12 and the grounds the next day, this did not violate the law. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India vs Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019), the judges said,
“There is no statutory obligation to serve the grounds of detention and relied upon documents on the same day. What matters is whether the authority acted within the five-day window mandated by law.”
The court further emphasized that there was no evidence of negligence or inaction by the detaining authority.
On the second point — that the detention was invalid since the accused was already in custody — the court relied on Kamarunnissa vs Union of India (1991), reiterating that preventive detention is valid if the authority is aware of the custody, has reliable material suggesting the person is likely to be released on bail, and believes they may revert to dangerous activities.
“Taking into account the petitioner’s criminal tendencies and the likelihood of release on bail, the authority’s satisfaction was not misplaced,” the Bench noted.
The judges also highlighted that the detainee had withdrawn his bail plea right after being served the detention order, suggesting an attempt to “defeat the purpose of the order.”
On the non-supply of the medical certificate, the Bench observed that the document was “not vital” to the detention decision and that its absence did not impair the detenue’s constitutional right to representation.
“The detaining authority applied its mind rationally. The omission of one document does not vitiate the subjective satisfaction required under the Act,” the court said.
The Division Bench held that the detention order was legally sound and free from procedural defects.
“There is no legal infirmity in passing the Detention Order dated 11th November 2024 and the Committal Order of even date,” the court declared.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Sangita Nandu Toradmal vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 839 of 2025
