Harsh Alias Nanya Shankar Shirke vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010166942026

1 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1787 OF 2026
Harsh @ Nanya Shankar Shirke .... Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents
…....
•
Mr. Prasad Avhad a/w Nishi Singhvi i/b. Kuldeep Nikam,
Advocate for Petitioner.
•
Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
DATE : 16 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT : (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention order
dated 30/12/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune
City/Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 also passed a
separate Committal Order dated 30/12/2025 directing that the
Petitioner be detained in Nashik Road Central Prison.
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
2. Heard Mr. Prasad Avhad, learned Counsel for the
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.10.22
10:53:39 +0530
Petitioner and Ms. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the State.
Nesarikar
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

2 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
3. The Petitioner was served with the grounds of
detention along with the detention order.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner specifically raised
two grounds.
Firstly, he submitted that the Detaining Authority in the
grounds of detention at different places has made contradictory
statements regarding the recording of his subjective satisfaction
as far as the material before the detaining authority was
concerned. At one place, the Detaining Authority has based its
subjective satisfaction with reference of the past activities of the
Petitioner. However, at another place, the detaining authority
specifically recorded that he was basing his subjective
satisfaction only on the registered offence and two ‘In-Camera’
statements. Learned counsel submitted that this has created
confusion and affected the Petitioner's right to make an earliest
effective representation against the detention order.
5.
Learned counsel also raised one more ground. He
submitted that, at the time when the detention order was
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

3 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
passed, the Petitioner was already in custody. His bail
application was rejected by a competent Court, and the
detaining authority was aware of this fact. However, the
detaining authority observed that, since the offence against the
Petitioner was not compulsorily punishable with the death
sentence, he was likely to be granted bail. Learned counsel
submitted that this observation and the satisfaction recorded on
that basis were not correct. A Division Bench of this Court, in the
case of Aman Yusuf Pathan @ Khan Vs. Commissioner of Police
and Others , in the order dated 06/08/2024 passed in Criminal
Writ Petition No.1722 of 2024 , has observed in paragraph No.7
that merely saying that the offence was not compulsorily
punishable with the death sentence and, therefore, the Petitioner
was likely to be released on bail in the future was not sufficient.
Both, the material and the relevant facts, were required to be
considered which are necessary for passing the order of
detention.
6. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there
were no contrary statements in the grounds of detention. The
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

4 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
detaining authority had specifically relied on the instances
mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6, i.e. CR No. 185 of 2025
registered at Vishrambaug Police Station and the two ‘In-
Camera’ statements. Therefore, the detention order is correct.
She submitted that the detaining authority had also shown
awareness that the Petitioner was in custody and was likely to be
released on bail. She, therefore, submitted that the detention
order and the grounds of detention did not suffer from any
infirmity.
7. We have considered these submissions. The grounds of
detention run into 15 paragraphs. Paragraph No.2 is important,
which mentions that the Petitioner was a weapon-wielding
dangerous recidivist of a violent nature indulging in criminal
activities that foster terror in society. The Petitioner and his
accomplices move armed with deadly weapons and committed
offences such as attempt to murder, grievous hurt, hurt, riot,
possessing illegal arms, etc. While engaging in violent criminal
activities, the Petitioner and his accomplices threatened the
people not to complain to the police about his criminal activities.
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

5 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
It is further recorded that he had thus made himself a virtual
terror. He had been habitually committing offences punishable
under the Indian Penal Code, as well as under the BNS Act. He
was, thus, a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-1)
of the said Act. Further, his criminal activities were prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. This subjective satisfaction is
important, and it quite clearly shows that the detaining
authority had relied on the Petitioner's past activities as the
offences under the IPC were also mentioned. There are three
past registered offences against him, which are recorded in
paragraph No.3. They are CR No.267 of 2015 registered at
Vishrambaug Police Station, CR No.527 of 2017 registered at
Vishrambaug Police Station, and CR No.91 of 2025 registered at
Samarth Police Station. There is also a mention of two
preventive actions taken at the instance of Vishrambaug Police
Station in the year 2016 and 2018 under Section 107 and
Section 110(e)(g) of the Cr.P.C.
8. Thus, paragraph No.2 read with paragraph No.3,
clearly show that the detaining authority had relied on the
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

6 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
Petitioner's past activities to arrive at his subjective satisfaction
that the Petitioner was a dangerous person and that his activities
were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
9. Section 2(b-1) defines a dangerous person as follows :
“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.”
10. Section 2(a)(iv) is also important, which reads as
follows :
“2(a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order” means -
(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 order;”
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

7 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
11. These conditions form basis for passing of the
detention order, and the detaining authority has to record its
satisfaction to that effect.
12. From the grounds of detention, it is clear that the
detaining authority had arrived at its satisfaction based on the
Petitioner's past registered offences, and the preventive actions
taken against him. Inspite of this clear recording of the
subjective satisfaction, in paragraph No.8, the detaining
authority stated that he had relied on the material mentioned in
paragraphs 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2 to arrive at his subjective
satisfaction that the Petitioner was a dangerous person and that
his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
13. Paragraph 5.1 refers to CR No.185 of 2025, registered
at Vishrambaug Police Station on 06/08/2025 under Sections
109, 118(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), and 49 of the BNS, under
Sections 4 (25) of the Arms Act, and under Section 37(1) r/w
135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. This offence pertains to the
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

8 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
incident dated 05/08/2025. At around 8:00 p.m., the Petitioner
and his associates assaulted the complainant in that case with
sharp weapons and caused injuries. The Petitioner was arrested
on 06/08/2025 and till passing of the detention order, he was in
custody. His bail application was rejected.
14. Ground 6.1 refers to the ‘In-Camera’ statement of
witness ‘A’ in respect of the incident which had taken place at
around 7:30 p.m. on 30/07/2025. This witness was riding a
motorcycle. He saw a commotion and people running at the
place of the incident. He was stopped by the Petitioner, who took
out a sword and extorted Rs.2,100/- from him. He was also
threatened.
15. Paragraph 6.2 refers to the statement of witness ‘B’ in
respect of the incident that had taken place at around 9:30 p.m.
on 28/07/2025. During that incident, the Petitioner had forcibly
removed Rs.1,200/- from the witness's bag.
16. Based on these three instances, the detaining authority
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

9 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
made a statement in paragraph No.8 that he was subjectively
satisfied that the Petitioner was a dangerous person and that his
activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
17. We find substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the averments in paragraph No.2
are contrary to the averments in paragraph 8 of the grounds of
detention. This has created confusion and has affected the
Petitioner's valuable right to make an earliest effective
representation against the detention order. This also shows non-
application of mind to these contrary paragraphs on the part of
the Detaining Authority.
18.
We also find force in the submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the awareness and satisfaction
recorded by the detaining authority that the Petitioner was likely
to be released on bail as the offence was not compulsorily
punishable with the death sentence, were not based on cogent
material. As held by the Division Bench in the case of Aman
Yusuf Pathan @ Khan , referred to hereinabove, satisfaction
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30

10 / 10 307-WP-1787-26.odt
based only on the consideration that the offence was not
compulsorily punishable with the death sentence, is not enough.
There has to be cogent material to base the detaining authority's
satisfaction that the Petitioner was likely to be released on bail.
19. On both the above aspects, the impugned detention
order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
20. Hence, the following order :
O R D E R
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 30/12/2025 passed
by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner is set
aside.
(iii) The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
(iv) The Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 11:05:30
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)