Pawan Sudhir Thorat vs District Magistrate Pune And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010197712026

2026:BHC-AS:44603-DB
SUPRIYA
PRAMOD
JAWARE

1 of 8 304-WP-2218-2026
supriya
Digitally signed by
SUPRIYA
PRAMOD JAWARE
Date: 2026.11.02
17:17:50 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2218 OF 2026
Pawan Sudhir Thorat ..Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate Pune and Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w Ms. Anjali Raut for the Petitioner.
Ms. M. H. Mhatre, 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
th
dated 12 February 2026 passed by Respondent No.1-District
Magistrate, Pune.
2. Heard, Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Ms. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the Respondent-
State.
3. The Petitioner was served with the Grounds of
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:28:21

2 of 8 304-WP-2218-2026
Detention along with the Detention Order. Paragraph 1 of the
Detention Order records that the Detention Order was passed
under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention
of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. It is further mentioned that the
Respondent No.1 was communicating with the Petitioner, the
grounds as mentioned in paragraph 4 on which the Detention
Order was issued.
4. Paragraph 4 pertains to one registered offence and two
in-camera statements as follows :
The C.R. No. 273 of 2025 was registered at Manchar
Police Station under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 326(F), 333,
189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(2) of the BNS. The
th
offence was registered on 24 September 2025 in respect of the
rd
incident dated 23 September 2025, that had taken place at
around 11.30 p.m. in the house of the complainant Ajay Todkar. At
that time, the Petitioner and ten other accused unlawfully entered
the property of the complainant. They were armed with iron rods,
wooden sticks and iron crowbars. They assaulted the complainant,
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:28:21

3 of 8 304-WP-2218-2026
his wife, his daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, brother and nephew. In
nd
this connection, the Petitioner was arrested on 2 October 2025
and was subsequently released on bail. Learned Counsel for the
th
Petitioner submitted that he was released on bail on 25
November 2025.
th
The statement of witness ‘A’ was recorded on 5
th
December 2025. He has stated that around 7.30 p.m. on 10
September 2025, he was travelling from Manchar to Khed on his
motorcycle via Pune-Nashik highway. He was followed by
Petitioner on his motorcycle. Witness ‘A’ was intercepted. The
Petitioner started beating him. The Petitioner forcibly removed
Rs.2,700/- from witness A’s pocket.
th
Witness B’s statement was recorded on 11 December
th
2025. He stated that at around 6.30 p.m. on 28 August 2025,
when he was standing outside the Government Rest House on the
highway, the Petitioner approached him and threatened him. The
Petitioner and his companions tore witness B’s clothes. The witness
tried calling for help, but the people there were also threatened
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:28:21

4 of 8 304-WP-2218-2026
and, therefore, nobody came forward to help him.
5. Paragraph 5 refers to the past history of the Petitioner,
which was in respect of seven registered offences at Manchar
Police Station right from the year 2021 up to 2025. There is a
reference to the preventive action taken under Section 110(e) and
(g) of CrPC in the year 2023. At that time, the Petitioner had
th
executed a bond for good behaviour on 27 February 2025. It is
further mentioned that the Petitioner was detained by Detention
th
Order under MPDA. That order was passed on 9 June 2025 by the
District Magistrate, Pune. After the said Detention Order, he had
committed three more serious offences and hence, it was observed
and the Detaining Authority recorded its subjective satisfaction
that the Petitioner was a dangerous person within the Section 2(b-
1) of MPDA and that his activities were prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 273 of 2025 of
nd
Manchar Police Station on 2 October 2025 and was released on
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:28:21

5 of 8 304-WP-2218-2026
th
bail on 25 November 2025. After his release, the two in-camera
th th
statements were recorded on 5 December 2025 and 11
th
December 2025 in respect of the alleged incidents dated 10
th
September 2025 and 28 August 2025. She submitted that the in-
camera statements were deliberately recorded to create material
against him. The incidents mentioned in those in-camera
statements had allegedly taken place before the incident which
was the subject matter of C.R. No. 273 of 2025, i.e. both these
rd
incidents had taken place before 23 September 2025. She,
therefore, submitted that the false in-camera statements were
created to facilitate passing of the Detention Order against the
Petitioner. She further submitted that the earlier Detention Order is
only cursorily mentioned in the Detention Order, but there is no
further reference as to why that Detention Order was set aside.
That would have had bearing on the ultimate subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.
7. Learned APP, on the other hand, supported the
Detention Order. She submitted that considering the continuous
activities even after he was released pursuant to the earlier
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:28:21

6 of 8 304-WP-2218-2026
Detention Order shows that he had not changed his inclination
and tendency to commit these offences and, therefore, to curb his
activities, it was necessary to pass the Detention Order. She
submitted that there was no delay in passing the Detention Order
because the incidents recorded in the in-camera statements were
th th
recorded on 5 and 11 December 2025, whereas the Detention
Order was passed in February 2026.
8. We have considered these submissions. The Detention
th
Order was passed on 12 February 2026. Though the learned
Counsel contended that there was delay in passing the Order
because all the incidents which are the basis of the Detention
Order had taken place in August and September 2025, however, it
has to be noted that the in-camera statements were recorded only
th th
on 5 December 2025 and 11 December 2025. The Petitioner had
created a reign of terror in the area and, therefore, witnesses were
not willing to come forward to give statements against him.
Finally, witnesses A and B came forward only in the month of
December to narrate the incidents. Though the incidents had taken
place in August and September 2025, the Authorities were made
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:28:21

7 of 8 304-WP-2218-2026
aware of those incidents only in the month of December 2025.
From that point onwards, the officers swung into action and
started the proceedings which ultimately resulted in passing of the
Detention Order. Therefore, we do not find that there is any delay
in passing the Detention Order.
9. We are also unable to accept the submission that the
Authorities have created record to pass the Detention Order. As
mentioned earlier, the witnesses were not willing to come forward
and, finally, two witnesses came forward only in the month of
December 2025. There is no reason to observe that those
statements were created by the Authorities only to enable them to
initiate action for passing the Detention Order.
10. Learned Counsel submitted that the in-camera
statements were recorded after the Petitioner was released on bail
th
on 25 November 2025. However, that by itself does not mean that
the in-camera statements were false or they were deliberately
created by the Authorities. Those in-camera statements were duly
verified by the superior Authorities. They were verified by the Sub-
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:28:21

8 of 8 304-WP-2218-2026
Divisional Police Officer, Junnar, and he had recorded his own
satisfaction that the incidents were true. In this view of the matter,
we are unable to accept the submission that false material in the
form of in-camera statements was created by the Authority. In this
view of the matter, we do not find any substance or merit in the
Petition.
11. As a result, the Petition is dismissed. The Rule is
discharged.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:28:21
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)