Dnyaneshwar Alias Bhurya Gabbar Rajput vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010152002026

1 / 7 301-WP-1569-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1569 OF 2026
Dnyaneshwar @ Bhurya Gabbar Rajput .... Petitioner
versus
Commissioner of Police,
Pune City & Ors. .... Respondents
…....
•
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi i/b. Ms. Anjali Raut, Advocate for
Petitioner.
•
Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
rd
DATE : 23 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT : (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order
dated 02/01/2026 passed by the Respondent No.1
Commissioner of Police, Pune City. On the same day committal
order was passed by the Respondent No.1 directing that the
Petitioner be detained in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Central
Prison.
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.10.29
11:15:59 +0530
2. Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State.
Nesarikar
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

2 / 7 301-WP-1569-26.odt
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner made the following
submissions :
Respondent No.1 had relied on one registered offence
and two 'In-Camera' statements. In the registered offence, the
Petitioner was never arrested. This shows that there was no
necessity to pass the detention order.
4. She submitted that the 'In-Camera' statements of
witnesses 'A' and 'B' did not refer to any bootlegging activity.
Therefore, Respondent No.1 committed an error in taking those
two 'In-Camera' statements into consideration while passing the
impugned detention order.
5. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that
although the Petitioner was not arrested in the registered
offence, he continued with his bootlegging activities, which was
evident from the two 'In-Camera' statements. The incidents
mentioned by witnesses 'A' and 'B' are after the registration of
the offence against the Petitioner. This clearly shows a live link
in his activities. Despite showing leniency to the Petitioner by
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

3 / 7 301-WP-1569-26.odt
not arresting him in the registered offence, he continued with
his activities. The witnesses were not willing to come forward,
but his activities were verified when the statements of those
witnesses were verified by the authority. The Respondent No.1
was well within his rights to rely on the 'In-Camera' statements
of the witnesses while passing the order.
6. We have considered these submissions. The grounds of
detention specifically mention that Respondent No.1 had
considered the offence mentioned in paragraph 5.1 and the
confidential statements mentioned in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2
while passing the detention order.
7. Paragraph 5.1 refers to C.R. No.308/2025, registered at
Lonikand Police Station under Section 65(f)(b)(c) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It was registered on 30/07/2025.
In that case, a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was
served on the Petitioner on 01/08/2025.
8. The incident pertains to a raid conducted pursuant to
confidential information received by the authorities. Country-
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

4 / 7 301-WP-1569-26.odt
made liquor was being prepared by setting up a kiln in an open
space on the banks of the Mula-Mutha River, near Rikame Wasti
in village Sashte, Haveli, Pune. Raid was conducted at that spot.
The Petitioner took advantage of the darkness and fled from
there. The raid was conducted at around 7:30 p.m.
9. The raiding party seized chemicals worth Rs.1,40,000.
They were concealed in a tank by digging a hole. The other
apparatus was also seized. Samples were drawn. The laboratory
report showed that the samples contained 11% v/v ethyl
alcohol, which could be used for the distillation of intoxicating
liquor. The Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacy,
Sassoon Hospital submitted a report stating that the
consumption of that mixture was harmful to human health.
10. Paragraph 6.1 refers to the 'In-Camera' statement of
witness 'A', which was recorded on 25/11/2025. The witness
stated in his 'In-Camera' statement that he was knowing the
Petitioner, who was conducting the business of preparing illicit
liquor on the banks of Mutha River. He further stated that the
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

5 / 7 301-WP-1569-26.odt
Petitioner had created fear in the locality. On 02/09/2025, this
witness went to his agricultural field, he saw the Petitioner was
making illicit liquor. The witness objected to the Petitioner's
activities. The Petitioner assaulted and threatened him.
11. Witness 'B' had given statement on 26/11/2025. He
stated that he knew that the business of making illicit liquor was
being carried on within the limits of Sashte Village. Witness 'B'
had himself pursued the matter so that the business could be
stopped. On 16/08/2025, when he was travelling on his two
wheeler on Wadegaon Road, the Petitioner and his brother
stopped him. They threatened him and told him that he should
not be seen anywhere near their liquor kiln.
12. Witness 'B' further stated in his statement that he had
requested the authorities to close down the business of distilling
illicit liquor near their village.
13. Both these 'In-Camera' statements were verified by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pune City.
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

6 / 7 301-WP-1569-26.odt
14. Thus, from the above instances, it is clear that the
Petitioner was indulging in such activities.
15. A bootlegger is defined under Section 2(b) of the
MPDA Act as follows:
“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;”
16. Section 2(a)(ii) refers to activities affecting the
maintenance of public order, which read as follows:
“2. (a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order” means—
(i) …..
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

7 / 7 301-WP-1569-26.odt
(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;
17. The activities of the Petitioner squarely fall within the
requirements of Section 2 of the MPDA Act. He is a bootlegger,
and his activities are adversely affecting the maintenance of
public order.
18. The Respondent No.1, the detaining authority, has
properly considered all these materials. We do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order. Hence we do not find any merit
in the Petition.
19. The Petition is dismissed.
20. The Rule is discharged.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)