Vinod Rajendra Wakare vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr

CNR No : HCBM010081342026

1 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
Gokhale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 915 OF 2026
Vinod Rajendra Wakare ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Harshavardhan B. Suryavanshi for Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 16 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the Detention order dated
22.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.3-Commissioner of
Police, Nashik City. The Respondent No.3 has also passed a
committal order on the same date directing the Petitioner’s
detention at Central Prison, Nashik. These orders are passed under
The Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981
(hereinafter referred to as ‘MPDA Act’).
2. Heard Mr. Harshavardhan Suryavanshi, learned counsel
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
Date:
2026.10.22
12:43:51
+0530
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

2 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
for the Petitioner and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for the State.
3. The Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention
dated 22.12.2025. There are in all 14 paragraphs. The Paragraph
No.1 refers to the fact that the Respondent No.3 was intimating
the Petitioner that the Detention order was passed on the points
mentioned in paragraphs-4(A), 4(A)(i), 4(A)(ii), 5(i) and 5(ii).
Paragraph-3(A) refers to seven cognizable offences pending
against the Petitioner since May 2023 up to May 2025. These
offences were registered at the instance of Inspector, State Excise
Department, A-Division, Nashik and were mainly U/s.65(e) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. Paragraph-3(B) refers to two
preventive actions taken against him in the past. The first one was
U/s.93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The Petitioner had
executed a bond of Rs.50000/- on 04.07.2023. It was taken by
SDM, Nashik Division, Nashik. The second action was a Detention
order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik on
07.05.2024. In that connection, the Petitioner was released on
07.09.2024 under the orders of this Court. This is the history
recorded by the Respondent No.3 in paragraphs-3. However, he
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

3 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
has relied on the instances mentioned in paragraphs-4 and 5.
There were two registered offences and two ‘in-camera’
statements.
4. In those paragraphs, paragraph-4(A)(i) refers to
C.R.No.115 of 2025 registered by the Inspector, State Excise
Department, A-Division, Nashik, U/s.65(e) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, on 03.06.2025. On that day, on prior information,
the Officers along with the panchas had raided the spot, where the
Petitioner was found selling hatbhatti liquor. During that search, a
plastic bucket holding 15 litre of illicit hatbhatti liquor and 36
plastic pouches holding approximately 9 litre of illicit hatbhatti
liquor were found in his possession. The samples were drawn and
sent for chemical analysis.
5. Paragraph-4(A)(ii) refers to C.R.No.181 of 2025
registered by the same authority U/s.65(e) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, on 03.09.2025. On this occasion also on prior
information, the Officers and two panchas went to the spot, where
again the Petitioner was found selling illicit liquor. On search, five
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

4 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
plastic pouches containing 50 litre of illicit hatbhatti liquor and a
plastic drum holding 37 litre illicit hatbhatti liquor were found in
his possession. Again the samples were drawn and sent for
chemical analysis.
6. Paragraph-5(i) refers to the statement of Witness ‘A’
recorded ‘in-camera’. It pertains to the statement recorded on
28.11.2025. Witness ‘A’ had stated in his statement that, he was
aware that the Petitioner was in the business of selling of illicit
liquor. If anybody tried to stop him, he was assaulted and abused
by him. The people in the locality had become addicted to liquor.
He had created an atmosphere of terror and fear in the area and,
therefore, nobody was willing to come forward to give complaint
against him. In the second week of October 2025, Witness ‘A’ was
returning home after his labour work. At that time, some people
under the influence of liquor were abusing each other at the
Petitioner’s illicit liquor den. The ladies in the locality could not
step out because of this. The witness had to take his son to the
hospital, but because of the chaos created by the people under the
influence of liquor, he could not go to the hospital. Because of the
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

5 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
fear created by the Petitioner, witness had not complained about
this to any officer, but when the officer of the Excise Department
took him into confidence, he told him this incident. This statement
was verified by the Deputy Superintendent, State Excise, Nashik on
01.12.2025. He had visited the spot and had verified the incident.
7. Paragraph-5(ii) refers to the statement of Witness ‘B’. It
was recorded ‘in-camera’. The statement is dated 28.11.2025. He
has stated that, he was knowing the Petitioner who was in the
business of selling illicit liquor in that area. Because of fear created
by him, nobody came forward to give a statement against him. In
the last week of October 2025, when he was returning home after
his labour work, he saw that some youths and school children
consuming liquor at the Petitioner’s liquor den. This witness told
the Petitioner to stop giving liquor to those young boys. The
Petitioner got angry. He held the witness, abused and assaulted
him. According to this witness, it was difficult for the ladies in the
locality to step out because of this constant trouble. This witness
told the Petitioner to shift his business from that area elsewhere,
but according to him, the Petitioner did not pay any heed and he
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

6 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
continued selling illicit liquor in that area. Because of the fear
created by the Petitioner, this witness did not give his statement
before the authority. The statement of the witness ‘B’ was verified
by the Deputy Superintendent, State Excise Department, Nashik,
regarding truthfulness of the incident.
8. Paragraph-6 of the grounds of detention specifically
mentions that the Respondent No.3 had minutely considered the
offences mentioned in paragraphs-4(A), 4(A)(i) and 4(A)(ii) and
the confidential statements mentioned in paragraphs-5(i) and
5(ii). It is further mentioned in paragraph-6 of the grounds of
detention that, due to his illicit liquor business, people in
Panchavati and the surrounding areas had become addicted and
their lives were in danger. In that way, due to his criminal acts, he
was creating obstruction to public order in Panchvati, Valmik
Nagar, Aurangabad road, Nashik-Dhule road and in the
surrounding areas under the jurisdiction of Inspector, State Excise
Department, A Division, Nashik. It is further mentioned that, thus,
he had proved himself to be a ‘bootlegger’ as defined U/s.2(b) of
the MPDA Act.
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

7 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
9. In paragraph-7, the Respondent No.3 has stated that, he
had reached to a clear and certain inference that the Petitioner was
a ruthless and hardened criminal who was selling handmade
liquor in the above area which was hazardous and detrimental to
the lives of the poor and working class people. The prevailing laws
of the Penal Code were found to be ineffective in stopping his
illegal activities. Therefore, in the light of these circumstances and
the incidents, he was constrained to reach a conclusion that no
other option was left other than detaining the Petitioner U/s.3(2)
of the MPDA Act.
SUBMISSIONS OF MR. HARSHAVARDHAN SURYAVANSHI,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, this is
the second Detention order passed against him. The first Detention
order was set aside by this Court. According to the learned counsel
for the Petitioner, the Detaining Authority could not have even
referred to the earlier Detention order. He submitted that the
Detaining Authority had relied on the offences which were also a
part of the earlier Detention order. This was not permissible. The
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

8 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
history of the earlier offences mentioned in the earlier Detention
order which is also reproduced in the earlier paragraphs of the
grounds of detention, has influenced the Detaining Authority in
passing the present Detention order. He relied on the observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Versus State
1
of Gujarat and others in support of his contention.
11. Learned counsel submitted that the observation of the
Detaining Authority that the normal laws of land were insufficient
to curb his activities is not based on cogent material. In fact, the
Petitioner was never arrested in the two registered offences
mentioned in paragraph-4 of the grounds of detention i.e.
C.R.No.115 of 2025 and C.R.No.181 of 2025. The officer had all
the powers to arrest the Petitioner in connection with these two
offences, but instead, they chose to serve notice U/s.35(3) of the
BNSS, which shows that there was no necessity to even arrest him;
much less passing the Detention order detaining him. In support of
his contention, learned counsel relied on the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyawant Versus The State
1 (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 124
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

9 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
2
of Maharashtra & Ors .
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
earlier Detention order was relied on by the Detaining Authority
because it is annexed to the documents supplied to the Petitioner
along with the grounds of detention. He submitted that the said
copy is illegible and, therefore, it has affected his right to make
effective representation. He submitted that, though, the Detaining
Authority has stated that he had relied only on the material
mentioned in paragraphs-4 and 5 of the grounds of detention, the
grounds of detention supplied to him has a heading “Grounds of
Detention” at the top; therefore, it has to be understood that the
entire paragraphs which followed are taken into consideration by
the Detaining Authority in recording his subjective satisfaction that
the Petitioner was a ‘bootlegger’ and his activities were prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order.
SUBMISSIONS OF MR. S. V. GAVAND, LEARNED APP FOR THE
STATE:
13. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that, both
these judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are
2 SLP (CRL.) No.5410/2026: Decided on 13.05.2026.
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

10 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submitted that
the activities of the Petitioner were quite serious and there was
direct danger to the health, safety and life of the public in the
entire area. Learned APP invited our attention to the CA reports in
connection with two registered offences. As far as, C.R.No.115 of
2025 is concerned, the sample contained 27% v/v ethyl alcohol in
water. As far as, other offence i.e. C.R.No.181 of 2025 is
concerned, the sample contained 28% v/v ethyl alcohol in water.
There was clear opinion mentioned by the Professor and Head of
Department of MPGIMER, MUHS, Nashik, that the mixture of 27%
and 28% v/v ethyl alcohol was dangerous and life threatening. If it
taken in large quantity, there was a possibility of poisoning,
unconsciousness or even death. Learned APP, therefore, submitted
that the activities of the Petitioner were quite dangerous and left
with no option, the Detaining Authority had to pass the Detention
order.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
14. We have considered these submissions. In the case of
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

11 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
Ramesh, the Hon’ble supreme Court had observed that, two
criminal cases mentioned by the Detaining Authority were also the
part of the earlier Detention order which was quashed and,
therefore, it cannot be said that those two cases were mentioned
only for a limited purpose of showing the antecedents of the
Detenue.
In the present case, however, the Detaining Authority
has been very clear in repeatedly observing that the Detention
order was based only on the incidents mentioned in paragraphs-4
and 5 of the grounds of detention. Those incidents and the
instances were definitely not the part of the earlier Detention
order. Therefore, we do not find substance in the submission of the
learned counsel for the Petitioner in that behalf.
15. The Detaining Authority, as mentioned earlier, has been
very categorical against the averments that he has relied only on
the instances mentioned in paragraph-4 and 5 referring to two
registered offences i.e. C.R.No.115 of 2025 and C.R.No.181 of
2025, as well as, ‘in-camera’ statements of the Witness ‘A’ and
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

12 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
Witness ‘B’. Learned counsel for the Petitioner tried to submit that,
in paragraph-2, the Detaining Authority has already recorded his
subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was running illegal
hatbhatti liquor business and lives of innocent people put in
danger. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner this was
the past history. However, paragraph-2 nowhere mentions that he
had made those observations based on the past history. This has to
be read in connection with paragraph-1 which precedes in
paragraph-2. In the said paragraph-1, he had specifically stated
that the Detaining Authority was intimating the Petitioner the basic
points mentioned in paragraph Nos.4(A), 4(A)(i), 4(A)(ii) and 5(i)
and 5(ii); whereby the Detention order U/s.3(2) of the MPDA Act
was issued against the Petitioner.
16. Even in paragraph-3 he has elaborated that the past
history mentioned in paragraph-3 was only referred rather than
relying on it. But he had definitely relied on two offences
mentioned in paragraph 4 and ‘in-camera’ statements referred to
in paragraph-5. These observations and the averments in the
grounds of detention are very clear and there is no confusion. The
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

13 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
Detaining Authority has specifically relied on the material referred
to in paragraph-4 and 5 only.
17. Learned counsel submitted that, in the two registered
offences i.e. C.R.No.115 of 2025 and C.R.No.181 of 2025, the
Petitioner was not even arrested and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the normal laws of land were not sufficient to curb his
activities. In that context, he has referred to the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyawant. We have perused
those observations in the said judgment. It is mentioned in that
Judgment that it was not stated in the grounds that by
consumption of spurious toddy supplied by the Appellant, people
fall sick thereby causing disturbance to the public order. In the
present case, there were specific averments as to how the activities
of the Petitioner were dangerous to the public in the locality. In
Vidyawant’s case, it was further observed that, there was no
material to demonstrate that there was an effort to arrest the
Appellant in connection with the cases registered against him, and
in such circumstances, the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority
that the activities of the Appellant were prejudicial to the
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

14 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
maintenance of public order had no real basis. Besides, where a
person could be dealt with under ordinary laws of the land,
invocation of the power under preventive detention laws was not
warranted in absence of cogent material to show breach of public
order.
However, in the present case, the subjective satisfaction
of the Detaining Authority is not restricted only to the two
registered offences wherein he was not arrested, but he has also
referred to confidential statements of the Witness ‘A’ and Witness
‘B’. Those two statements were in respect of the incidents which
had taken place in October 2025. It was after registration of two
offences. Both these statements recorded ‘in-camera’ referred to
the incidents which clearly attract the activities of the Petitioner as
bootlegging activities and, therefore, he is a ‘bootlegger’ within the
meaning of the MPDA Act. His activities were also prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. ‘Bootlegger’ is defined U/s.2(b) of
the MPDA Act, which reads as follows:
“2(b) “bootlegger” means a person, who distills,
manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells
or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

15 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
intoxicants in contravention of any provisions of the
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and orders
made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being
in 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;”
The Activities prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order in the case of a ‘bootlegger’ is defined U/s.2(a)
(ii) of the MPDA Act; which reads 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) 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;”
18. Learned APP rightly relied on the Explanation to sub
section (a) of Section 2 of the MPDA Act; which reads as follows:
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

16 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
“Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause (a),
public order shall be deemed to have been affected
adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected
adversely, inter alia, if any of the activities of any of
the persons referred to in this clause directly or
indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm,
danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the
general public or any section thereof, or a grave or
widespread danger to life or public health or disturbs
the life of the community by producing and
distributing pirated copies of music or film products,
thereby resulting in a loss of confidence in
administration;”
19. Therefore, two registered offences and two ‘in-camera’
statements in respect of the incidents having taken place one after
the other as a live link shows that there were continuous activities
which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The live
link was never snapped as can be seen from the ‘in-camera’
statements. The witnesses were not willing to come forward to
give statements against the Petitioner. Therefore, normal laws of
land, in this particular case, considering the entire material, were
quite clearly insufficient to curb his activities.
20. We do not find force in the submission of the learned
counsel that the earlier Detention order was set aside and the
history based on which that Detention order was passed also
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02

17 of 17 301-wp-915-26 (J)
influenced the Detaining Authority while passing the present
Detention order. The Detention order in the present case is passed
on the basis of fresh and subsequent instances.
21. Learned APP has rightly referred to C.A. report which
quite clearly mentioned that the percentage of ethyl alcohol in the
illicit liquor sold by the Petitioner was quite hazardous and
dangerous to the health of people in the locality.
22. Thus, from the above discussion, we are satisfied that,
there was no infirmity in the Detention order and the Detention
order cannot be set aside.
23. 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 - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 12:52:02
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)