Chetan Laxman Chavan vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010233502026

2026:BHC-AS:44752-DB

1 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2586 OF 2026
Mr. Chetan Laxman Chavan
Age :- 24 Years, Occ. Labour,
Residing at Flat No. 501,
Ingale Colony, Ingale Corner,
above new Poona Bakery, Shivane,
Tahsil Haveli, District Pune. … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary of Home Dept.
Preventive Detention, (Special),
Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Residing at 2 Sadhu Wasvani Road,
Camp, Pune City
3. The Superintendent of Buldhana
District Prison, District Buldhana
4. The Police Inspector,
Through Uttam Nagar Police Station,
Tal. Haveli, District Pune. ... Respondents
__________
Mr. Ramji Kotali i/by Mr. Sachin Bhavar for Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for Respondent-State.
__________
Sagar Magar
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

2 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
DATE : 30 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT (PER RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J) :-
1) By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks to quash and
th
set aside the impugned Detention Order dated 7 January 2026, passed
by the Respondent No. 2, i.e. Commissioner of Police, Pune as also the
committal Order of the even date, whereby the Petitioner was detained
in the Buldhana District Prison, Buldhana.
2) Heard Mr. Ramji Kotali, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
3) Mr. Ramji Kotal, learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner, on instructions submitted that, though the Petitioner has
raised various grounds in the petition, he is restricting his arguments to
only one ground i.e., in the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining
Authority has relied upon past offences and preventive actions to
conclude that the Petitioner is a dangerous person under section 2(b-1)
of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA Act)
and at the same time stated that he is relying only on certain offences
mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Grounds of Detention, to arrive
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

3 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
at the required subjective satisfaction to conclude that the Petitioner is
a dangerous person under the MPDA Act. That, has created confusion in
the mind of the Petitioner and thereby adversely affected the
Petitioner’s right to make an effective representation.
4) Per contra, Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP, supported the
Order of Detention and submitted that, the Detaining Authority has
only relied upon the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
Grounds of Detention. That, the reference in the Detention Order , to
the past offences and preventive actions taken in the past is only to put
in perspective the history of the Petitioner and the Petitioner’s
propensity towards crime and criminal activities. Mr Gavand, would
submit that, perusal of the Grounds of Detention makes it clear that, the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is based only on the
C.R. mentioned in paragraph 5, i.e. C.R. No. 130 of 2025, and the two
in-camera statements of witnesses A and B.
5) We have considered the submissions of the respective
advocates appearing for the parties. We have perused the entire record
and particularly the Grounds of Detention. In paragraph 2 of the
Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has specifically referred
to the Petitioner as a weapon-wielding dangerous recidivist of violent
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

4 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
nature, indulging in criminal activities that foster terror in society. It is
specifically recorded that, the Petitioner has become a perpetual danger
to the lives and properties of the people residing in and around the
jurisdiction of Bundgarden and Uttamnagar Police Stations, in Pune. It
is recorded that, the Petitioner along with his accomplices, moved
around the area with deadly weapons such as firearms, swords, koytas
and knives and does not hesitate to use the same while committing
offences such as attempt to murder, causing hurt, rioting, etc. The
Detaining Authority, further proceeds to record that, the Petitioner has
made himself a virtual terror on account of the criminal activities
mentioned in paragraph 3 and habitually commits offences under
Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Chapters VI
and XVII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Chapter V of the Arms Act.
Therefore, the Detaining Authority has termed the Petitioner as a
“Dangerous Person” as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act.
6) We have noted that, in paragraph 2 of the Grounds of
Detention, the Detaining Authority has specifically mentioned that the
Petitioner was a weapon-wielding, dangerous recidivist of violent
nature, indulging in criminal activities that foster terror in society. It has
been specifically stated that the Petitioner moves around with deadly
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

5 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
weapons and, on account of his criminal activities, has created virtual
terror in the said area. The Detaining Authority, after narrating the
aforesaid facts has in paragraph 2, specifically concluded that:
“2. ..Thus, you have made yourself a virtual terror on
account of your below mentioned criminal activities. You
have been habitually committing offences under chapters XVI
and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, under chapters VI and
XVII of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita well as under Chapter V of the
Arms Act and you are thus a “Dangerous Person” as defined
under Section 2(b-1) of the said Act. Further, your criminal
activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”
7) Paragraph 3 of the Grounds of Detention lists the past
offences and preventive actions taken against the Petitioner. There are
five past offences against the Petitioner registered with Uttamnagar
Police Station and Bundgarden Police Station. The offences are during
the period from April 2019 to October 2023. The record indicates that,
the Petitioner had been arrested in all of the offences. Perusal of the
tabulated chart reproduced in paragraph 3.1 would indicate that, the
offences pertain to Sections 326, 427, 506 and 34 of the IPC, read with
Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, and under Sections 37(1)(3)/135 of the
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

6 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
Maharashtra Police Act, read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act.
8) We have noted that, the Grounds of Detention proceed to
reproduce the preventive actions taken against the Petitioner in
paragraph 3.2. There are seven preventive actions taken against the
Petitioner. It is specifically recorded that, in spite of the preventive
actions being taken i.e the Petitioner being externed from the
jurisdiction of the Pune City and Pimpri Chinchwad Police
Commissionerates for a period of two years; being detained in the
Nagpur Central Prison, etc the same have had no deterrent effect on the
Petitioner. The said conduct of the Petitioner adversely affected the
maintenance of public order in the jurisdiction of Bundgarden and
Uttamnagar Police Stations, Pune.
9) After referring to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Grounds of
Detention, in paragraph 4, the Detaining Authority has once again
stated that, the involvement of the Petitioner is noticed in offences
which are of a serious nature and which are suggestive of the
Petitioner's violent tendencies and inclination to perpetuate criminal
activities as a “Dangerous Person” as defined under Section 2(b-1) of
the MPDA Act.
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

7 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
10) In paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority refers to C.R. No.
nd
130 of 2025, registered with the Uttamnagar Police Station on 22
October 2025 under Sections 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, Section
4(25) of the Arms Act, Section 37(1)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act
and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Perusal of the said
nd
C.R. would indicate that, the incident pertains to 22 October 2025. It
is stated that, the complainant and his friend were walking to offer
prayers at a nearby Masjid at Kondhave Dhawade, Pune. When they
were on the public road in front of Bismilla Biryani House, Kondhave-
Dhawade, Pune, the Petitioner and Mr. Waghmare, who were known to
the complainant, came on a motorcycle. Waghmare asked the
complainant's friend, Rehan Qasim Ansari, as to where he would get
good biryani. At that time, Waghmare started arguing with the
complainant, after which he threatened and abused the complainant. At
that time, the Petitioner removed a sharp weapon from his waist, waved
it in the air and created terror. Looking at the acts of the Petitioner, the
shopkeepers closed their shops and went home. This is one CR which
has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority.
11) Further, in paragraph 6 of the Grounds of Detention, the
Detaining Authority has referred to and relied upon two in-camera
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

8 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
statements, i.e. of witnesses A and B, which are referred to in
paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the Grounds of Detention. As regards the
th
statement of witness A, it pertains to the incident of 17 October 2025.
th
The statement of witness A was recorded on 30 October 2025. The
said witness has stated that, after having dinner, he was going to his
friend's paan stall near Shinde Pool, where he saw a crowd of children
at the paan stall. He saw shopkeepers closing the shutters of their shops
in a panic. As the witness was nearby and he saw that people were
running, he thought something was wrong and therefore stood behind a
shelter to watch the incident from a distance. The witness saw the
Petitioner among the crowd of children, holding a long koyta in his
hand and talking to a friend who owned the paan stall. It is stated that
the Petitioner put his hand in the cash counter to take out some money,
and also abused the owner of the paan stall. The Petitioner forcefully
took an amount of Rs. 3,500/- from the paan stall.
12) Perusal of the statement of witness B would indicate that,
st
the same was recorded on 1 November 2025 and pertains to the
th
incident of 13 October 2025. The witness was a vegetable vendor who
was selling vegetables on his handcart at around 7.15 p.m. The
Petitioner and his accomplice suddenly came in front of his handcart,
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

9 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
threatened and abused the vegetable vendor. The vegetable vendor was
assaulted by the Petitioner and his accomplice. The people/customers
who had come to buy vegetables from the complainant ran away from
the spot of the incident. The Petitioner and his accomplice forcefully
took an amount of Rs. 1,450/- from the witness's pant pocket and left
after threatening the witness.
13) In paragraph 7 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining
Authority, after referring to the above-mentioned offences/incident , i.e.
C.R. No. 130 of 2025 and two in-camera statements of witnesses A and
B, has specifically stated that, he was subjectively satisfied that the
Petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the
MPDA Act. It is stated that, the Petitioner has unleashed a reign of
terror and has become a perpetual danger to society at large in the
areas of Bundgarden and Uttamnagar Police Stations, Pune.
14) In paragraph 8, the Detaining Authority has specifically
stated that, it has relied upon the material mentioned in paragraphs 5.1,
6.1 and 6.2 of the Grounds of Detention to arrive at its subjective
satisfaction that the Petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under
Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and that the criminal activities of the
Petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

10 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
15) Along with the Detention Order, the Grounds of Detention
are served upon the Detenue with the purpose and object that the
Detenue is made well aware of the exact case which he is required to
answer. The Grounds of Detention contain the basis on which the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority has been arrived at
and the Detention Order passed. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India, the Detenue has a right to make representation to the
Authorities. The said representation is made by the detenue, based on
and in response to the Grounds of Detention. It is pertinent to note that,
the Grounds of Detention assume and are of critical importance
because they afford an opportunity to the Detenue to make a
representation at the earliest, in consonance with Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India.
16) In our considered view, the contents of paragraph 2 of the
Grounds of Detention clearly indicate that, the Detaining Authority had
already concluded, based on the past offences and preventive actions,
mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Grounds of Detention, that the
Petitioner was a dangerous person and, was indulging in criminal
activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said
conclusion/subjective satisfaction is also based on past activities/actions
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

11 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
which are mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Grounds of
Detention.
17) Here it would be useful to refer to the definitions of
“dangerous person” and of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order” as defined under the MPDA Act which
read as follows:
Section 2(b-1):
"Dangerous person' means a person, who either by himself or
as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or
attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the
offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the
Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under
Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959."
“2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,- (a) "acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order" means-
(i) …..
2(a) (iv) in the case of a dangerous person, when he is
engaged, or is making preparation for engaging, in any of his
activities as a dangerous person, which affect adversely, or
are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

12 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
order.”
18) To term a person as a ‘dangerous person’ it is required that,
the ingredients of both Sections 2(b-1) and Section 2(a)(iv) are
satisfied. In our opinion, the Detaining Authority, has in fact done and
dealt with the same in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the ground of Detention
itself. We have noted that, the Detaining Authority, after recording the
aforesaid observations has in paragraphs 7 and 8 specifically stated
that, it had relied on material mentioned in paragraph 5, 6.1 and 6.2 of
the Grounds of Detention to arrive at its subjective satisfaction that
Petitioner is a dangerous person under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act
and that his criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of
the public order. In our considered view, the observations made in
paragraphs 2 and 8 of the Grounds of Detention are contradictory, as
the Detaining Authority, in paragraph 2, arrives at its conclusion and
bases its subjective satisfaction on past offences, activities and
preventive actions, while in paragraph 8 of the Grounds of Detention,
the Detaining Authority specifically observes that it has based its
subjective satisfaction on C.R. No. 130 of 2025 and two in-camera
statements of witnesses A and B. This, in our opinion, clearly creates
confusion and thereby directly affects the Petitioner's right to make an
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

13 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
effective representation. One of the rights contemplated under Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India is to afford the detenue an
opportunity of making an effective representation. The said opportunity
is of crucial importance to the detenue, as an action under preventive
Detention is a summary action involving imprisonment without a trial.
19) When paragraphs 2 and 8 of the Grounds of Detention are
read together, they clearly create a confusion in the mind of a prudent
person. The Petitioner while making a representation, would not be
able to clearly know whether he has to deal with the past offences
and/or preventive actions mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3, or whether
he has to deal only with the material relied upon by the Detaining
Authority in paragraphs 5, 6.1 and 6.2, or both. This adversely affects
the Petitioner’s right to make an effective representation.
20) We note that, the references made in paragraph 2 are not a
casual or passing reference made to the past offences or preventive
actions nor can the contents be termed or referred to as only an
interlocutory preamble. The Detaining Authority has clearly concluded
that the past offences and actions of the Petitioner made him a
“Dangerous Person”.
21) We have no doubt in our mind that the contents of
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

14 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
paragraphs 2 and 3, when read with paragraph 8, would cause a
confusion in the mind of any person including the Petitioner and, as a
result thereof, the right of the Petitioner to make an effective
representation to the competent authority would be adversely affected.
In our view, therefore, the Petitioner’s right under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India was violated and adversely affected. A useful
reference can be placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vijay Kumar Dharna v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 60
22) Perusal of the contents of paragraphs 2 and 8 of the
Grounds of Detention, clearly creates a confusion as to the basis and
material on which the Detaining Authority has arrived at its subjective
satisfaction. Considering the Grounds of Detention in their entirety, we
are of the considered view that, the contents of paragraphs 2 and 8
clearly created confusion in the mind of the detenue and it is not clear
on which material the Detaining Authority has relied upon to reach its
subjective satisfaction. This, confusion and lack of clarity, in our
considered view directly affects the right of the detenue to make an
effective representation. It appears that, the detaining authority has also
relied upon the past instances as well as the instances referred to in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Grounds of Detention, and still proceeded to
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

15 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
state that it relies only on the instances mentioned in paragraph 5 and 6
of the Grounds of Detention. In our opinion, this has prejudiced the
right of the Petitioner to make an effective representation. One cannot
lose sight of the fact that Preventive Detention action is a summary
action and the Detention is without trial. One of the safeguards
available to the Detenue is his right of making a representation as
provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The said
safeguard, should be effectively, completely and meaningfully provided
to the Detenue. The right to make a representation includes a right to
make a complete, effective and meaningful representation. It is
necessary that, the facts and material on which the subjective
satisfaction is arrived at should be clear, present and not stale grounds
nor based on acts/misconduct which can be effectively and completely
addressed by the normal law of the land. In view of the aforestated
peculiar facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the
Detention Order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and
set-aside.
23) Hence the following Order.
i) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (b) which read as follows :-
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46

16 of 16 308-WP-2586-2026
“b. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
issue a proper Writ/order/direction for quashing
and setting aside the impugned Detention Order
dated 07/01/2026 bearing OW. No. CRIME PCB/
DET/ UTTAMNAGAR/ CHAVAN/ 19/ 2026
passed by the Respondent No. 2 u/s. 3(2 of the
M.P.D.A. Act and impugned Committal Order
dated 07/01/2026 bearing OW. No. CRIME
PCB/DET/UTTAMNAGAR/ CHAVAN/ 20/ 2026
passed by the Respondent No. 2 arising out of
impugned order dated 30/12/2025 passed by
the Respondent No.1 bearing (Special MPDA No.
- 1225/CR-673/Spl-3B and direct the
respondents to release the Petitioner forthwith;”
ii) The Petitioner be released from detention
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
iii) Petition is disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
SAGAR
SANTOSH
MAGAR
Digitally signed by
SAGAR SANTOSH
MAGAR
Date: 2026.11.03
16:58:36 +0530
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:13:46
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)