Thavriya Walya Patlavat vs Commissioner Of Police

CNR No : HCBM010158192026

2026:BHC-AS:44597-DB
SUPRIYA
PRAMOD
JAWARE

1 of 8 303-WP-1681-2026
supriya
Digitally signed
by SUPRIYA
PRAMOD
JAWARE
Date: 2026.11.02
16:59:46 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1681 OF 2026
Thavriya Walya Patlavat ..Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Of Police ..Respondent
__________
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut for the Petitioner.
Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
DATE : 30 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order
rd
dated 23 January 2026, passed by Respondent No.1-
Commissioner of Police, Pune City. By a separate Committal Order
rd
dated 23 January 2026, the Petitioner was directed to be
detained at Nashik Central Prison.
2. Heard, Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the
Respondent-State.
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:11:06

2 of 8 303-WP-1681-2026
3. The Petitioner was served with the Grounds of
Detention along with the Detention Order. Paragraph 3.1 lists five
offences registered by the State Excise, Saswad, Pune, and State
Excise, C and D Division, Pune, between the years 2021 to 2025.
All these offences were under Section 65(a)(e) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act. However, these offences were mentioned only as
the history of the Petitioner.
4. Paragraph 3.2 is interesting and important. In the said
paragraph, it is mentioned that Chapter Case No. 4 of 2025, dated
th
11 February 2025, was initiated against the Petitioner by the
State Excise, C Division, Pune, under Section 93 of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
The exact words mentioned in the Grounds of
Detention as follows :-
“On 25/03/2025, you had been executed bond of Rs.
1,00,000/- with one surety for one year by Special
Executive Magistrate, Zone IV, Pune City. During the
bond period you had committed CR no 132/2025 of
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:11:06

3 of 8 303-WP-1681-2026
State Excise C Division Pune. Hence to initiate more
effective action, on 19/08/2025 the case is withdrawn
u/s 137 of BNSS.”
5. Paragraph 5 and 6 refer to the material on which the
Detention Order is passed. Paragraph 5 refers to C.R. No. 132 of
th
2025, registered by State Excise, C Division, Pune, on 7 August
2025, under Section 65(a)(e) and 83 of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act. The officers had apprehended the Petitioner and
one Ramesh Gaikwad on prior information. They were found to
possess 14 plastic cans containing country-made liquor worth Rs.
50,400/-. The samples were drawn. The investigation was carried
th
out. The Petitioner was arrested on 7 August 2025. He was
th
granted bail on 8 August 2025 by the J.M.F.C., Pune. On analysis,
it was found that the sample contained 24% v/v ethyl alcohol.
6. Paragraph 6 refers to two in-camera statements of
th
witnesses A and B. The witness A’s statement was recorded on 26
November 2025 and the witness B’s statement was recorded on
th th
27 November 2025. The witness A has stated that on 17
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:11:06

4 of 8 303-WP-1681-2026
November 2025, at about 07.00 a.m., the Petitioner came near
witness A’s house, the Petitioner removed a Koyta hidden in his
shirt and tried to attack witness A. The witness A ran away from
there, but he was threatened by the Petitioner.
th
Witness B has stated about the incident dated 19
November 2025. Again, on this occasion, the Petitioner had
threatened him with a Koyta in his hand.
This is the material based on which the Detention
Order was passed.
7. In paragraph 7, it is specifically mentioned that the
normal laws of the land were insufficient to curb the bootlegging
activities. He was arrested in several bootlegging offences and was
released on bail but he continued to commit those offences, and
hence, it was concluded that normal laws of land were insufficient
to curb his bootlegging activities. Based on this satisfaction, the
impugned Detention Order was passed.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Grounds of Detention display total non-application of mind on the
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:11:06

5 of 8 303-WP-1681-2026
part of Respondent No.1. She submitted that the bond for not
th
committing any offence was executed by the Petitioner on 25
March 2025 for a period of one year. Therefore, if there was any
offence committed by him, it could be termed as breach of bond,
for which there were penal consequences provided under Section
93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act read with 141(1)(b) of
BNSS and the authorities could have very well taken action against
him by arresting him after pointing out to the learned Magistrate.
Instead of that, the authorities resorted to passing of the Detention
Order. Ms. Tripathi further submitted that the action of the
authorities was predetermined and malafide. The averment in
paragraph 3.2 shows that the case pertaining to the bond was
withdrawn under Section 137 of BNSS to initiate more effective
action. That means they had already decided to issue the
Detention Order. This is more glaring from the fact that they had
th
recorded the in-camera statements of the witnesses on 26
th
November 2025 and 27 November 2025 in respect of the
th th
incidents dated 17 November 2025 and 19 November 2025,
thereby falsely creating material against the detenu. On these
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:11:06

6 of 8 303-WP-1681-2026
grounds, the Detention Order is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned APP on the other hand supported the
Detention Order. She submitted that the activities travelled beyond
mere breach of bond. The material shows that even after executing
the bond, the Petitioner committed an offence, which was
registered vide C.R. No. 132 of 2025; but beside this registered
offence, there were two definite instances, as reflected in the
statements of witnesses A and B which shows that the Petitioner
continued with his activities and, therefore, there was no option
left for the Detaining Authority but to pass the Detention Order. In
that context it was clear that the normal law of land was
insufficient.
10. We have considered these submissions. We find force in
the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The bond
th
dated 25 March 2025 was in operation for a period of one year.
The offence pertaining to the C.R. No. 132 of 2025, which was one
of the grounds relied on by the Detaining Authority, was
th
committed on 7 August 2025. That means the offence was
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:11:06

7 of 8 303-WP-1681-2026
committed during existence of the bond. In that case, it was
necessary for the authorities to have taken steps under Section
141(1)(b) of BNSS. The authorities did not choose to take any
action; instead, the Detention Order was passed. We also find force
in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
the action of passing of the Detention Order was predetermined
because paragraph 3.2 itself shows that the Chapter Case
regarding execution of the bond was dropped because the
authorities wanted to take more effective action. The said action
was nothing else but passing the Detention Order. Thus, the
authorities had predetermined to initiate the proceedings under
the detention laws, and finally the Detention Order was passed.
We also find force in the submissions of the learned Counsel that,
to support their intention to pass the Detention Order, the in-
camera statements were recorded subsequently about the incident
which allegedly had taken place subsequent to withdrawal of the
Chapter Case involving execution of the bond.
11. On both these grounds, we are satisfied that the
Detention Order is not sustainable and is required to be set aside.
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:11:06

8 of 8 303-WP-1681-2026
Hence, the following Order:-
ORDER
(i) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (b) which reads as follows:-
“The order of detention bearing D.O. OW. CRIME
PCB/ DET / CHATURSHRUNGI/ PATLAVAT / 67 /
2026 Dated 23.01.2026 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 shall be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.
(iii) The Petition is disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:11:06
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)