Rahul Vyankat Rathod vs District Magistrate Pune And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010151892026

1 / 7 302-WP-1572-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1572 OF 2026
Rahul Vyankat Rathod .... Petitioner
versus
District Magistrate Pune & Ors. .... Respondents
…....
•
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w 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 08/12/2005 passed by Respondent No.1, the District
Magistrate, Pune. The grounds of detention were served on the
Petitioner along with the detention order.
2. Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State.
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.10.29
11:15:59 +0530
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
detention order was based on one registered offence and two
Nesarikar
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

2 / 7 302-WP-1572-26.odt
'In-Camera' statements. In connection with the registered
offence, the Petitioner was arrested on 04/10/2025 and
immediately on the next day he was released on bail. Therefore,
there was no necessity to keep him behind bars.
4. She submitted that the 'In-Camera' statements of
witnesses 'A' and 'B' did not reveal any bootlegging activities.
Therefore, the detention order could not have been based on
those two 'In-Camera' statements.
5. She further submitted that the grounds of detention
mentioned that the Petitioner was made to execute bond under
Section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The bond
was executed on 25/08/2025 and was cancelled on
06/11/2025. She submitted that, while the bond was in
existence, if there was any allegation of breach of the bond, the
authorities could have very well taken steps for breach of bond.
Instead, the authorities chose to initiate proceedings for passing
the detention order. Thus, when the normal laws of the land
were sufficient, there was no necessity to pass the detention
order.
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

3 / 7 302-WP-1572-26.odt
6. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the
activities of the Petitioner show that there was a continuous live
link in his activities. The normal law of the land was insufficient
to curb his activities, and, therefore, as a last resort the
detention order came to be passed.
7. We have considered these submissions.
8. The grounds of detention mention that the detaining
authority had relied on C.R. No.230/2025, registered by the
State Excise Department under Section 65(b)(e)(f) (b) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It was in respect of the raid
conducted by the State Excise Flying Squad at 8:50 a.m. on
04/10/2025. The Petitioner was found illegally manufacturing
country-made liquor at the spot. An offence was registered. The
Petitioner was arrested and as mentioned earlier he was released
on bail on 05/10/2025.
9. The statement of witness 'A' was recorded on
10/11/2025. The witness stated that he was aware that the
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

4 / 7 302-WP-1572-26.odt
Petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing and
selling country-made liquor. The witness 'A' stated that he had
tried to convince the Petitioner to stop his illegal activities, but
the Petitioner used to abuse and threaten him. In the month of
October 2025, the Excise Officers had conducted a raid on the
Petitioner's business. The Petitioner suspected that the
information was given by this witness.
On 01/11/2025, at about 4:00 p.m., the Petitioner
came near the witness 'A'. The Petitioner kicked him in the
stomach. He continued assaulting witness ‘A’. The Petitioner told
him that he was aware that witness 'A' had informed the Excise
Officers about the Petitioner's business. The Petitioner
threatened to kill him. Witness 'A' somehow escaped from the
Petitioner's clutches and ran away. However, due to fear, he did
not lodge any complaint.
10. Witness 'B' gave his statement on 13/11/2025. He
stated that the Petitioner came to his house at 7:00 a.m. on
03/11/2025 and accused him of informing the Excise Officers
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

5 / 7 302-WP-1572-26.odt
about the Petitioner's illegal business. Witness 'B' was also
assaulted and threatened.
11. The 'In-Camera' statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' were
verified by the authorities.
12. Thus, it can be seen that there was a continuous live
link of the Petitioner's activities. Though he had executed a
bond, even subsequent to that, offence was committed by him,
which was registered as C.R. No.230/2025. After the registration
of the offence, the Petitioner assaulted and threatened witnesses
'A' and 'B'. The statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' specifically
refer to his bootlegging activities.
13. Section 2 (b) of MPDA defines a bootlegger 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
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

6 / 7 302-WP-1572-26.odt
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;”
14. The activities causing prejudice to the maintenance of
public order are referred to in Section 2(a)(ii), which reads as
follows:
“2. (a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order” means—
(i) …..
(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;
15. Thus, it can be seen that the Petitioner's activities
clearly fall within the requirements of Section 2 of the MPDA
Act. The detaining authority has properly applied his mind to
the facts of the case. We are satisfied that the detention order
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 11:29:02

7 / 7 302-WP-1572-26.odt
was passed as a last resort. Therefore, we do not find any
infirmity in the detention order. Consequently, there is no merit
in the Petition.
16. The Petition is dismissed.
17. 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)