Krish Jonny Rathod vs District Magistrate Pune And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010151932026

: 1 : 303-wp-1570-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1570 OF 2026
Krish Jonny Rathod …..Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate Pune
and others .….Respondents
-----
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, Advocate a/w. Anjali Raut for the
Petitioner.
Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
DATE : 16 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT : [Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.]
1.
The Petitioner has challenged his detention under
the detention order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the
Respondent No.1 – District Magistrate, Pune. The Petitioner
was directed to be detained in Amravati Central Prison.
2.
Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, the learned counsel
for the Petitioner and Ms. M.H. Mhatre, the learned APP for the
Respondent-State.
1 of 8
Deshmane(PS)
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 2 : 303-wp-1570-26.odt
3.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that though various grounds are raised in the Petition, she is
relying only on the ground that the Petitioner’s representation
made to the State Government was not considered
expeditiously or even within a reasonable period. The learned
APP does not have any serious counter argument to this
submission.
4.
However, before referring to the said issue, very
briefly, the allegations made in the grounds of detention, can
be referred to as follows:
i. The grounds of detention mention that the detention
order was passed based on the grounds mentioned in
Paragraph-4. The said paragraph pertains to the
registered offence i.e. C.R. No.218/2025 lodged by the
Inspector, State Excise Department, ‘K’ Division, Pune
under Section 65(E) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act,
1949 dated 26.9.2025. The Petitioner was found in
possession of the illegal unlicensed village handmade
liquor in an open space.
2 of 8
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 3 : 303-wp-1570-26.odt
ii. Paragraph-4(b) refers to the statements of two witnesses
i.e. witness ‘A’ and witness ‘B’. Those statements were
recorded in-camera. The witness ‘A’ has stated about the
incident that had taken place in the first week of August,
2025; and the witness ‘B’ has stated about the incident
that had taken place in the last week of October, 2025.
iii. Besides this material, on which the detention order is
passed, the Detaining Authority has referred to the
Petitioner’s past illegal activities right from the year
2024 upto 2025. There were four registered offences
under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. Two of them
were registered at Urulikanchan police station and two
were registered by the Inspector of State Excise Duty,
Flying Squad No.2.
iv. Besides those registered offences, there was a preventive
action taken under Section 23 of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act.
v. The Detaining Authority has recorded his subjective
satisfaction that the Petitioner was a bootlegger within
3 of 8
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 4 : 303-wp-1570-26.odt
the meaning of Section (2) of the Maharashtra
Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (for short,
‘MPDA Act’) and that his activities were prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order.
5.
To complete the record, following dates may be noted :
The detention order was passed on 12.12.2025. The
report under Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act was received by
the Government from the Detaining Authority on 13.12.2025.
A reference was made under Section 10 of the MPDA to the
Advisory Board on 22.12.2025. The opinion of the Advisory
Board is dated 27.1.2026, which was received by the
Government on 28.1.2026. The detention order was confirmed
by the Government on 11.2.2026.
6.
The main ground on which the Petitioner’s
continued detention is challenged is specifically taken in
ground (c) of the Petition, which reads as follows :
“c. The petitioner says and submits that representation
of the petitioner dated 01.01.2026, was sent to the
Superintendent Amravati Central Prison at
Amravati. for further sending it to the State
Government for expeditious consideration, revoke
4 of 8
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 5 : 303-wp-1570-26.odt
and communication. The petitioner says and
submits that so far, no communication has been
received from the State Government as regards to
the consideration of the said representation by the
State Government, the State Government has
delayed in considering the representation of the
petitioner expeditiously and diligently and
communicating the result to the petitioner. All
respective authorities are called upon to explain the
delay, if any, occurred from the date of
representation till today to the satisfaction of this
Hon'ble Court, failing which the continued
detention will be held as illegal and bad in law,
liable to be quashed and set aside.”
7.
The Superintendent, Amravati Central Prison,
Amravati has filed his affidavit-in-reply. The paragraph dealing
with the Petitioner’s ground (c), is paragraph-7 of the affidavit-
in-reply filed by the Superintendent, Amravati Central Prison.
Paragraph-7 reads as follows :
“07. I say and submit that, The counsel for the said
MPDA prisoner has submitted copies of the
representation to the Addl. Chief Secretary
(Home), Home Department (Special),
Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai
on 12.01.2026 for submission of representation
through this office. The said MPDA prisoner has
5 of 8
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 6 : 303-wp-1570-26.odt
signed the said representation and same was
submitted by this office to the Addl. Chief
Secretary(Home), Home Department (Special),
Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai
on 13.01.2026 through e-mail and speed post.
Copy of this office letter no 426/2026 dated
13.01.2026 is enclosed herewith and mark as
Exhibit R-3.”
8.
Thereafter there is complete silence on the part of
the authorities regarding the steps taken from 13.1.2026 upto
14.8.2026. The affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Government
of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai has
referred to ground (c) taken in the Writ Petition. It is
mentioned in the reply that the representation dated 13.1.2026
of the Petitioner was received by the Desk Special 3-B on
14.8.2026 from Amravati Central Prison, Amravati vide their
letter dated 14.8.2026 along with Advocate’s letter dated
7.1.2026. However, the affidavit of the Jail Superintendent,
Amravati has an annexure to his affidavit which shows that he
has sent the representation through Speed Post vide covering
letter dated 13.1.2026. The affidavit of the Jail Superintendent
specifically mentions that the representation was submitted by
6 of 8
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 7 : 303-wp-1570-26.odt
his office to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home
Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai on 13.1.2026 through email and Speed
Post.
9.
In any case, it is quite clear that the Petitioner
through his Advocate had given representation on 12.1.2026
but it was received by the Government only on 14.8.2026.
There is absolutely no explanation offered by any authorities as
to what transpired between 13.1.2026 till 14.8.2026. After
14.8.2026, the representation was considered and was
rejected. The rejection was communicated to the detenu vide
the letter dated 25.8.2026. However, the period between
13.1.2026 upto 14.8.2026, which is more than seven months,
has remained totally unexplained. This has affected the
Petitioner’s right of getting his representation considered
expeditiously within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India.
10.
In this view of the matter, we are inclined to direct
release of the detenu. Before parting with the judgment, it is
7 of 8
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 8 : 303-wp-1570-26.odt
necessary to mention that the delay between sending and
receiving the representation by the authorities is inordinate
and unacceptable. Therefore, the Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Maharashtra shall look into the
matter and if necessary conduct enquiry so that this lapse is not
repeated again and the representations are considered
expeditiously.
11.
Hence, the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
i. The Petition is allowed.
ii. The Petitioner Krish Jonny Rathod be released
forthwith from detention in connection with the
detention order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the
Respondent No.1 District Magistrate, Pune, if he is not
required in any other case.
iii. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
8 of 8
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Digitally signed by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date: 2026.10.21
19:56:13 +0530
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)