Khalid Ahmad Gulamgaus Bepari vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010151492026

2026:BHC-AS:44560-DB

1 of 7 301-wp-1538-26 (J)
Gokhale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1538 OF 2026
Khalid Ahmad Gulamgaus Bepari ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Ms. Sonali R. Chavan for Petitioner.
Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 29 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the Detention order dated
29.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 – District Magistrate,
Pune.
2. Heard Ms. Sonali Chavan, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Ms. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Detention order is passed based on one registered offence and two
‘in-camera’ statements. The registered offence was C.R.No.280 of
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
Date:
2026.11.02
15:23:06
+0530
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

2 of 7 301-wp-1538-26 (J)
2025 registered at Aalephata police station. He was arrested on
17.10.2025 and was released on bail on 31.10.2025. Without
making any application for cancellation of bail, straightaway this
Detention order is passed. She submitted that, this course was not
a proper course, and the police authorities could have made an
application for cancellation of bail. She relied on the Judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.11.2025 passed in
Criminal Writ Petition No.3071 of 2025 in the case of Haridas
Gaikwad Versus Commissioner of Police, Solapur and others.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the ‘in-camera’
statements of the witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ did not indicate about the
Petitioner’s activities being prejudicial to maintenance of public
order. The incidents pertain to a private dispute between two
individuals. The public at large was not affected and, therefore,
those two ‘in-camera’ statements could not have been taken into
consideration by the Detaining Authority while passing the
Detention order.
5. On the other hand, learned APP submitted that, there is
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

3 of 7 301-wp-1538-26 (J)
no infirmity in the Detention order or in the ground of detention.
The Detaining Authority has rightly relied on one registered
offence and two ‘in-camera’ statements. The incidents by their very
nature show that the incidents affected the maintenance of public
order and, therefore, the Detention order is rightly passed.
6. We have considered these submissions. The C.R.No.280
of 2025 was registered at Aalephata police station, under sections
109, 189(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 125(A), 352, 351(2),
351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and U/s.135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. It was registered on 17.10.2025. The
complaint was filed by one Rushikesh Kurhade stating that on
16.10.2025, at about 11:30p.m., he was going on his two wheeler
to meet his friend. When he reached the Gram Panchayat office in
Aale, the Petitioner and others came running towards him forming
an unlawful assembly. They were carrying the weapons like iron
rods and wooden sticks. They assaulted the complainant with the
weapons. They assaulted others who had come to help him. The
Petitioner was arrested on 17.10.2025 and he was granted bail by
the Sessions Court on 31.10.2025.
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

4 of 7 301-wp-1538-26 (J)
7. Witness ‘A’ had given his statement on 22.11.2025 in a
confidential inquiry. It pertains to the incident dated 28.02.2025.
The witness and his friend had approached the Petitioner and told
him to stop bringing cows for slaughter. But the Petitioner and his
brother abused and threatened the said witness. Witness ‘A’ and his
friend ran away from the spot. They were frightened. Whenever
they were walking on the street, the Petitioner continued to
threaten him. Witness ‘A’ further stated that the Petitioner had
spread reign of terror in that area. Therefore, the witnesses were
not willing to come forward to give statement against him.
8. Witness ‘B’s statement was recorded on 25.11.2025. It
was in respect of an incident which had taken place on
07.11.2025. The said witness was running a hotel. The Petitioner
and his son had come to his hotel. They took two bottles of water.
When this witness asked for the money, the Petitioner threatened
him. His property was damaged. The customers tried to intervene.
The Petitioner then left the hotel by threatening this witness.
9. Thus, from the above incidents, it is clear that the
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

5 of 7 301-wp-1538-26 (J)
Petitioner’s activities fell within the meaning of ‘activities
prejudicial to maintenance of public order, as far as, dangerous
person was concerned. The term ‘dangerous person’ is defined
U/s.2(b-1) of the Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous
Activities) Act, 1981; which reads 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. The activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order
in connection with dangerous person are defined as follows:
“Section 2 - Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-
(a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order” means-
(i) xxxxx
(ii) xxxxx
(iii) xxxxx
(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 - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

6 of 7 301-wp-1538-26 (J)
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner tried to contend that
the Authorities could have made efforts to get his bail cancelled in
stead of passing the Detention order. For that purpose, she relied
on the Judgment of Haridas referred to herein above. However, in
that Judgment itself it was mentioned that in that particular case,
there was nothing on record to indicate that after enlargement on
bail, the Petitioner had indulged in any criminal activities or that
the prosecution had moved any application for cancellation of bail.
In the present case, though, the prosecution had not moved an
application for cancellation of bail, the Petitioner’s activities
continued even after his released on bail; as can be seen from the
statement of Witness ‘B’ which was in respect of an incident dated
07.11.2025. The incident had taken place in public place where
the people in the hotel were directly affected.
12. The prosecution could not have made an application for
cancellation of bail. The witnesses were not willing to come
forward to give statement against him. The witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’
also were not willing to come forward. In the meantime, the
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21

7 of 7 301-wp-1538-26 (J)
Petitioner continued with his activities. In the present case, the
record shows that the witnesses were not willing to come forward
and, therefore, it was not possible to make an application for
cancellation of bail. The ‘in-camera’ statements show that the
Petitioner’s activities have direct connection with his continuing
activities. The live link was never broken. The witnesses were not
willing to come forward. All these activities clearly fall within the
four corners of the MPDA Act which enabled the Detaining
Authority to pass the Detention order. From the record, it can be
seen that the Detaining Authority was justified in passing the
Detention order. The normal laws of land were not sufficient to
curb the activities of the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, we
do not find any infirmity in the Detention order.
13. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
i) The Petition is dismissed.
ii) Rule is discharged.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:40:21
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)