Yakub Alias Munna Mustafa Shaikh vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors

Court
Bombay High Court

CNR No : HCBM010414212026

1 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4242 OF 2026
Yakub Alias Munna Mustafa Shaikh … Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Of Police And Ors. ... Respondents
__________
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut for Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
rd
DATE : 3 NOVEMBER 2026
JUDGMENT :- (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner has a 19 year old son suffering from diabetes who
requires dialysis thrice a week. The Petitioner has to take his son
for dialysis and, therefore, this matter is required to be heard
urgently.
2) The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order
th
dated 18 July 2026 passed by Respondent No. 1 – Commissioner
of Police, Pune City, along with the Committal Order issued by
Sagar Magar
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28

2 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
Respondent No. 1, directing that the Petitioner be detained at
Nashik Central Prison.
3) Heard, Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned counsel for
Petitioner and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for Respondent-State.
4) Learned counsel produced copies of the approval of the
th
Detention Order dated 28 July 2026. The same is taken on record
and marked ‘X’ for identification. She also produced the Detention
th
Confirmation Order dated 11 September 2026. The same is also
taken on record and marked ‘Y’ for identification.
5) The Petitioner was served with the Grounds of
Detention. Paragraph 3 lists 11 various offences registered against
the Petitioner at Hadapsar and Wanawadi Police Stations from the
year 2023 to the year 2026. The list mentions that the offences
were registered under Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra
Prevention of Gambling Act. When we asked the learned APP as to
what was the provision of the Prevention of Gambling Act under
which these offences were registered, he could not explain,
because Section 12(a) is about the powers of the Police to arrest
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28

3 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
the suspect and it is not a defining or penal section. Be that as it
may, in all these offences, only notices either under Section 41A of
CrPC or under Section 35(3) of BNSS were served on the
Petitioner.
6) Paragraph 3.2 refers to Chapter Case No. 2 of 2026
th
dated 13 January 2026, initiated at the instance of Wanawadi
Police Station under Section 129(g) of BNSS. It is mentioned that
th
the Petitioner had executed a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- on 25
August 2025 for a period of 3 years, but he committed offences,
being C.R. No. 257 of 2026 and C.R. No. 258 of 2026, under the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, and, therefore, with a
view to initiating more effective action, the bond proceedings were
th
withdrawn on 17 July 2026.
7) Paragraph 5 refers to one registered offence i.e. C.R.
th
No. 258 of 2026, registered at Wanawadi Police Station on 5 June
2026. In this case also, a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was
issued.
8) It is mentioned in Paragraph No. 5.1, where the
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28

4 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
description of C.R. No. 258 of 2026 is given as follows:
th
On 5 June 2026, at around 11.00 hrs., the Police
Officers were patrolling in the area of Suraksha Nagar. They
received information that gambling activities were being
conducted under a tree in that area. The Police Officers went there
and found some people indulging in illegal activities. On seeing
the Police Officers, they ran away, but the Police Officers were
successful in arresting one Aditya Khandagale. Some cash and a
notebook were found with him. On further enquiry, the said person
informed the Police that he was carrying out gambling activities
which were controlled by the Petitioner.
9) Paragraph 6 refers to two in-camera statements of
th
witnesses. Witness ‘A’ has stated that on 27 May 2026, the
Petitioner approached him and caused damage to his handcart
because, according to the Petitioner, Witness ‘A’ was spreading
awareness regarding the Petitioner’s illegal activities. Witness ‘A’
was threatened by the Petitioner.
th
10) Witness ‘B’ stated that on 29 May 2026, the Petitioner
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28

5 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
approached him and asked him to join him in his gambling
activities, but the witness refused. At that time, the Petitioner
slapped him and took out a knife. The Petitioner threatened him.
This is the material on which the subjective satisfaction was
recorded and under which the Detention Order was passed.
11) Learned counsel for the Petitioner made the following
submissions :-
She submitted that the State Government had
approved the Detention Order passed by Respondent No. 1 vide
th
Order dated 28 July 2026. The Approval Order mentioned that
the Detention Order was to remain in force for 60 days.
Subsequently, after the Advisory Board gave its report, the
Confirmation of the Detention Order was passed by the State
Government. At this time, it was mentioned that the detention was
to remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of the
Petitioner’s arrest. She submitted that once it was opined by the
State Government that 60 days of detention would be sufficient,
there was no reason to extend it for 6 months without any
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28

6 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
intervening circumstances.
She submitted that the grounds given in English and
those given in Marathi have a serious discrepancy in Paragraph 8.
In the grounds given in English, there is a mention of C.R. No. 173
of 2026 registered with Manjari Police Station, and it is mentioned
th
that the Petitioner was arrested on 16 March 2026. This
particular averment is totally absent in the grounds given in the
Marathi language. Paragraph 8 of the grounds in the Marathi
language does not refer to C.R. No. 173 of 2026, registered with
Manjari Police Station, at all. Instead, there is a reference to C.R.
No. 258 of 2026, registered with Wanawadi Police Station. This
discrepancy is irreconcilable. It shows non-application of mind and
also creates confusion. Thereby, the Petitioner’s right to make an
earliest effective representation is affected. It is also not clear
whether the Detaining Authority has considered the grounds in
English as well as the grounds in Marathi, and, therefore, his
subjective satisfaction becomes vulnerable.
She further submitted that, in the case of C.R. No. 258
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28

7 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
of 2026, the Petitioner was not even present at the spot and
nothing was recovered from him. The case is only based on the
statement of co-accused Khandagale and there was no evidence at
all against him. This fact was not taken into account by the
Detaining Authority.
12) Learned APP submitted that the Detaining Authority
had considered a long list of offences registered against the
Petitioner and that as a last resort the Detention Order was passed.
The learned APP tried to support the Detention Order, but he could
not explain why the Approval Order and the Confirmation Order
mentioned two different periods. He could also not explain the
discrepancy between the grounds in Marathi and English.
13) We have considered these submissions. As rightly the
submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Approval
th
Order dated 28 July 2026 passed by the State Government
mentions that the period of detention was 60 days from the date of
his arrest. That means the State Government was satisfied that
detention for 60 days was sufficient to curb his activities. However,
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28

8 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
th
the Detention Confirmation Order dated 11 September 2026
mentions that the detention of the Petitioner was to continue for a
period of 6 months from the date of his actual detention. There is
no reference to the earlier period of 60 days mentioned in the
Approval Order. There is no further reason mentioned as to why
the period was extended from 60 days to 6 months. There were no
prevailing circumstances which justified such an extension. This
shows non-application of mind on the part of the Officers of the
State Government who had confirmed the Detention Order after
receiving the report of the Advisory Board.
14) The other issues raised by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner are also important. There is a serious discrepancy in
Paragraph 8 of the grounds provided in English and the grounds
provided in Marathi. Both these paragraphs refer to two
completely different offences. It again shows non-application of
mind on the part of the Authorities and it has also affected the
Petitioner’s valuable right to make an earliest effective
representation.
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28

9 of 9 15-WP-4242-2026
15) On these aspects, the Detention Order is not
sustainable and is required to be set aside. Hence, the following
Order :-
i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(b), which reads as follows :-
“b. The order of detention bearing D.O. OW.
PCB/ DET/ WANAWADI/SHAIKH/499/2026,
Dated 18.07.2026 issued under Section 3 of
M.P.D.A. Act 1981 by the Respondent No.1 be
quashed and set aside and on quashing the same
the Petitioner be ordered for release forthwith;”
ii) The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
iii) The Petition is disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
SAGAR
SANTOSH
MAGAR
Digitally signed by
SAGAR SANTOSH
MAGAR
Date: 2026.11.04
16:58:20 +0530
Uploaded on - 04/11/2026 Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 17:04:28
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)