Sankat Sunil Hole vs District Magistrate, Pune And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010169932026
2026:BHC-AS:43553-DB
1 of 7 305-wp-1853-26
Gokhale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1853 OF 2026
Sanket Sunil Hole ..Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Pune & 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 : 23 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the Detention order dated
29.12.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Pune – Respondent
No.1. The Petitioner has challenged his continued detention.
2. Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Ms. Mhatre, learned APP for the State.
3. The Petitioner is served with the grounds of detention.
The Detention order is based on one registered offence i.e.
C.R.No.523 of 2025 at Khed Police station, U/s.118(2) of the
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
Date:
2026.10.27
10:48:13
+0530
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 11:06:13
2 of 7 305-wp-1853-26
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The offence was registered on
10.09.2025. It took place at Rakshewadi, at about 1:30p.m. on
10.09.2025. It was in respect of an assault committed by the
Petitioner on his own wife. Besides this registered offence, the
Detention order was based on two ‘in-camera’ statements of
Witness ‘A’ and Witness ‘B’; they pertained to the incidents dated
27.10.2025 and 23.11.2025. Witness ‘A’ was assaulted and
threatened by the Petitioner on 27.10.2025. He had also
threatened the people in the area. As far as Witness ‘B’ is
concerned, he was stopped on the highway and Rs.1200/- were
forcibly taken from him. Based on these three incidents, the
Detention order was passed. Besides these three instances, the
grounds of detention mentioned his past history of five registered
offences.
SUBMISSIONS BY MS. JAYSHREE TRIPATHI, LEARNED COUNSEL
FOR THE PETITIONER.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
registered offence was of a personal dispute between the husband
and wife and it did not affect the maintenance of public order. She
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 11:06:13
3 of 7 305-wp-1853-26
also contended that the statements of Witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ do not
pertain to the activities causing prejudice to maintenance of public
order. However, learned counsel specifically relied on a main
ground of challenge i.e. ground ‘c’ taken in the memo of petition.
She submitted that the Petitioner had made a representation on
21.01.2026, but it was not considered expeditiously by the State
Government and it was finally decided in the month of August
2026 i.e. on 18.08.2026. There is inordinate delay in consideration
of representation; which has affected his valuable right under
Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
SUBMISSIONS OF MS. M. H. MHATRE, LEARNED APP FOR THE
STATE.
5. Learned APP submitted that, though, the registered
offence was in respect of a dispute between the husband and wife,
however, the incidents involving Witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ clearly make
out the case of Petitioner’s activities causing prejudice to
maintenance of public order. However, she could not justify the
inordinate delay in considering the Petitioner’s representation.
6. In response to the submissions made by the learned APP,
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 11:06:13
4 of 7 305-wp-1853-26
learned counsel for the Petitioner restricted her ground of
challenge to the ground of inordinate delay in considering the
representation of the Detenue.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
7. In this background, we have considered whether the
State Government had shown due diligence and urgency in
considering the representation of the Petitioner.
8. The ground ‘c’ in the petition is as follows:
“c. The petitioner says and submits that
representation of the petitioner dated 21.01.2026 was
sent to the State Government, through Central Prison
Amravati (as stated in the grounds of detention) for
expeditious consideration, revoke and
communication. The petitioner says and submits that
the representation of the petitioner is to be dealt with
expeditiously and diligently and communicate the
result to the petitioner at the earliest. All
respective/concerned authorities are called upon to
explain the delay, if any, occurred from (the date of
representation till the date when the result of the
representation is communicated to the petitioner) 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.”
9. In response to this ground, the Deputy Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, in
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 11:06:13
5 of 7 305-wp-1853-26
his Affidavit in reply explained as to when and how the
representation was considered. Paragraph-2 in his Affidavit in
reply is important; which is as follows:
“2. With reference to Para 5(c) of the Writ Petition,
it is submitted that the representation dated
27.01.2026 of the detenue was received by desk
Special 3-B on dated 27.01.2026 through Amravati
Central Prison, Amravati vide their letter dated
27.01.2026 alongwith advocate letter dated
21.01.2026. Therefore, the remarks were called for,
from the Detaining Authority i.e. The District
Magistrate, Pune on the dated 27.01.2026 by Special
Branch-3B Desk. The remarks of the Detaining
Authority were received on the dated 12.08.2026 vide
letter dated 12.08.2026 via e-mail. The concerned
Assistant Section Officer submitted file containing
remarks of Detaining Authority along with the
representation of the detenue to Section Officer on
the dated 13.08.2026. The Section Officer endorsed it
on dated 14.08.2026 and forwarded it to the Under
Secretary. The Under Secretary endorsed it on dated
14.08.2026 and forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary.
As being holidays on dated 15.08.2026
(Independence day) and 16.08.2026 (Sunday), the
Deputy Secretary endorsed it on dated 17.08.2026
and forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary
(Home). The Additional Chief Secretary (Home)
considered the remarks of the detaining Authority and
rejected the said representation on 18.08.2026 by
applying his mind. The rejection of representation
was communicated by post to the detenue vide letter
dated 18.08.2026 through the Registry section of
Home Department. Thus, the representation of the
detenue was considered by the State Government as
expeditiously as possible.”
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 11:06:13
6 of 7 305-wp-1853-26
10. From the above explanation, it is more than clear that,
though, the State Government had received the representation on
27.01.2026 itself, there was a huge gap till 12.08.2026 when the
final remarks of the Detaining Authority were received. There is no
explanation offered as to what transpired in between 27.01.2026
till 12.08.2026. This delay is enormous and unexplained. This has
definitely affected the Petitioner’s valuable right under Article 22
of the Constitution of India, which affords him an earliest
opportunity to make representation. Earliest consideration of his
representation is important part of his valuable right. The said
right is affected and, therefore, his continued detention cannot be
permitted.
11. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
i) The Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith
if not required in any other case in connection
with the Detention order dated 29.12.2025
passed by the District Magistrate, Pune –
Respondent No.1.
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 11:06:13
7 of 7 305-wp-1853-26
ii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
iii) The Writ Petition is disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 11:06:13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)