Aklesh Kumar Jitmal Nut vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010151972026

2026:BHC-AS:44561-DB

1 of 8 302-wp-1573-26 (J)
Gokhale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1573 OF 2026
Aklesh Kumar Jitmal Nut ..Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad
& Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w. Anjali Raut for Petitioner.
Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 29 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the Detention order dated
30.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1-Commissioner of
Police, Pimpri - Chinchwad. By a separate committal order, the
Petitioner was directed to be detained in Kolhapur Central Prison.
2. Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Ms. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
Date:
2026.11.02
15:23:28
+0530
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

2 of 8 302-wp-1573-26 (J)
Detention order is based on three registered offences. Out of them,
the Petitioner was arrested only in one offence and he was
immediately released on bail. The Petitioner was made to execute
interim bond U/s.93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It was
executed on 26.06.2025, but it was not taken to its logical end.
The interim bond was discontinued on 28.08.2025. She, therefore,
submitted that the Authorities did not use the powers under the
normal laws of land, and instead chose to invoke their special
powers under the Extraordinary proceedings of passing the
Detention order. This shows that the stringent action of passing the
Detention order was not necessary at all, particularly, when the
normal laws of land were sufficient to curb the alleged activities of
the Petitioner.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Authorities
have recorded the statements of two witnesses ‘in-camera’ on
27.11.2025. The last offence was registered on 31.7.2025 and
after inordinate delay, the ‘in-camera’ statements were recorded on
27.11.2025. It shows that the Authorities only tried to create the
record to initiate the proceedings of passing the Detention order.
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

3 of 8 302-wp-1573-26 (J)
5. Learned APP, on the other hand, supported the impugned
Detention order. She submitted that the activities of the Petitioner
show a continuous live link. The Petitioner was taking advantage
of the fact that he was released on bail in the last offence. In spite
of that, he continued with his activities as is evident from the
verified ‘in-camera’ statements of the witnesses. She, therefore,
submitted that the Detaining Authority, as a last resort, has passed
the Detention order and there was no infirmity in the order, as
such.
6. We have considered these submissions. The Petitioner
was served with the grounds of detention. Paragraph-3 refers to
the five offences registered at Hinjawadi police station between
11.03.2025 to 31.07.2025. All these offences were registered
U/s.65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. Paragraph-3.1 refers
to the preventive action taken U/s.93 of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, initiated at the instance of Hinjwadi police station.
The Petitioner had executed interim bond of Rs.1,00,000/- for a
period of six months. The interim bond was executed on
26.06.2025. The case was discontinued on 28.08.2025. There were
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

4 of 8 302-wp-1573-26 (J)
three offences registered after he had executed the interim bond
on 26.06.2025.
7. Paragraph-4.1 specifically refers to the three offences
which were considered for issuing the Detention order. Apart from
these three offences, paragraph-6 refers to the statements of
Witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ recorded ‘in-camera’; which also formed a
basis for passing the Detention order.
8. The three offences registered at Hinjwadi police station
based on which the Detention order was passed, are as follows:
i) C.R.No.383 of 2025 registered on 02.07.2025
U/s.65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. On
02.07.2025 at about 3:30a.m. the Petitioner was
found possessing illicit hatbhatti liquor for sale
worth Rs.7000/- near Atlanta society, Wakad,
Pune. In that connection, he was served with the
notice U/s.35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) on
02.07.2025 itself. The investigation and the
subsequent C.A. report show that the sample
contained 05% v/v of ethyl alcohol in water.
ii) C.R.No.411 of 2025 registered on 09.07.2025
U/s.65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. On
09.07.2025 at about 3:10a.m. the Petitioner was
found possessing illicit hatbhatti liquor for sale
worth Rs.4500/- behind S.K. garage, Man, Taluka
Mulshi, Dist. Pune. On this occasion also, notice
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

5 of 8 302-wp-1573-26 (J)
U/s.35(3) of the BNSS was served on him. The
sample showed presence of 05% v/v of ethyl
alcohol in water.
iii) C.R.No.505 of 2025 registered on 31.07.2025
U/s.65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. On
31.07.2025 at about 3:30a.m. the Petitioner was
found possessing illicit hatbhatti liquor for sale
worth Rs.8000/- near Atlanta 2, near labour
camp, Bhujbal Vasti, Wakad, Pune. In this
offence, the Petitioner was arrested on
26.08.2025 and he was granted bail on
29.08.2025. The sample showed presence of 05%
v/v of ethyl alcohol in water.
9. There were two statements of the witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’
recorded ‘in-camera’ on 27.11.2025 and 29.11.2025 respectively.
Witness ‘A’ stated that, he was aware about the Petitioner’s illegal
liquor business. In the third week of September 2025, at 9:30p.m.,
one labourer came to this witness’s stall after buying illicit
hatbhatti liquor from the Petitioner’s den. That labourer wanted to
buy snacks. The Petitioner came there and started assaulting that
labourer because he had not paid the Petitioner’s money. When
Witness ‘A’ tried to intervene, he was threatened and his stall was
damaged.
10. Witness ‘B’ has deposed about the incident took place in
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

6 of 8 302-wp-1573-26 (J)
the first week of October 2025 at around 7:30p.m. On that
occasion, the Petitioner had come there and had threatened him
when this witness had scolded the people in the area for
misbehaving by consuming liquor.
11. Thus, it can be seen that there was continuous live link
in the activities of the Petitioner. The interim bond was executed
on 26.06.2025. Thereafter there were three offences against the
Petitioner, registered on 02.07.2025, 09.07.2025 and on
31.07.2025. The execution of interim bond had no effect on him.
On the last occasion i.e. in connection with C.R.No.505 of 2025
registered at Hinjawadi police station, the offence was registered
on 31.07.2025, the Petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2025 and he
was released on bail on 29.08.2025. After that, two incidents
referred to by the Witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ in their statements had
taken place. Thus, the normal laws of land were not sufficient to
curb his activities. He continued in his illegal activities. The
‘bootlegger’ is defined U/s.2(b) of the MPDA Act, which reads as
follows:
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

7 of 8 302-wp-1573-26 (J)
“2(b) “bootlegger” means a person, who distills,
manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells
or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other
intoxicants in contravention of any provisions of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and
orders made thereunder, or of any other law for the time
being in force or who knowingly expends or applies any
money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance or any receptacles or any other materials
whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing any of
the above mentioned things by or through any other
person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of
any such thing;”
12. The activities causing prejudice to the maintenance of
public order in connection with ‘bootlegger’ are defined under
Section 2(a)(ii) of the MPDA Act; which reads thus:
“Section 2 - Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-
(a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order” means-
(i) xxxxx
(ii) in the case of a bootlegger, when he is
engaged, or is making preparations for
engaging, in any of his activities as a
bootlegger, which affect adversely, or are
likely to affect adversely, the maintenance
of public order;”
13. Thus, it is quite clear that the Petitioner’s activities
squarely fall within the meaning of ‘bootlegger’ and bootlegging
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

8 of 8 302-wp-1573-26 (J)
activities. The Detaining Authority has rightly referred to all his
activities and has passed the Detention order after following all the
necessary procedure and on being satisfied that the Detention
order was necessary. In this view of the matter, we do not find any
infirmity in passing the Detention order.
14. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
i) The Petition is dismissed.
ii) Rule is discharged.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)