Sandip Harichandra Udmale vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010170342026

2026:BHC-AS:42872-DB

: 1 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1852 OF 2026
Sandip Harichandra Udmale …..Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane
and others .….Respondents
-----
Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
DATE : 16 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT : [Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.]
1.
The Petitioner has challenged the detention order
dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police,
Thane. Apart from the detention order, the Respondent No.1 -
Commissioner of Police, Thane has also passed committal order
dated 10.12.2025 and the Petitioner was directed to be
detained in Nashik Road Central Prison.
2.
Heard Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, the learned counsel
for the Petitioner and Ms. M.H. Mhatre, the learned APP for the
1 of 9
Deshmane(PS)
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 2 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt
Respondent-State.
3.
The Petitioner was served with the grounds of
detention which run into eighteen paragraphs. The averments
in those grounds, briefly stated, are as under:
i. Paragraph-1 mentions that he was communicating the
grounds as mentioned in paragraphs-4 & 5 on which the
detention order was passed.
ii.
In paragraph-2 it is mentioned that according to his
criminal record he was a violent type of dangerous
criminal having taken to the life of a criminal for the sake
of easy money and to show his upper hand in the areas
within the jurisdiction of Narpoli, Chitalsar, Bhoiwada
police stations in Thane Commissionarate.
iii. Paragraph-3 is important. It is mentioned that he was
moving in the area armed with different types of
weapons and committed various offences which fell
under Chapter XVI, XVII of the IPC and under Chapter VI,
XIX, XIX of BNS. Paragraph-3 further gives details of four
2 of 9
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 3 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt
offences registered with Bhoiwada, Chitalsar and Narpoli
police stations between 2023 till 2025. There was one
externment proceeding taken against him at the instance
of Narpoli police station. He was externed by the DCP,
Zone-II, Bhiwandi vide order dated 20.8.2024 and he
was externed from Thane, Brihan Mumbai and Palghar
for two years. However, it is further mentioned that
during the externment period he had committed two
offences and, therefore, to take effective action against
him the said proposal was cancelled on 8.11.2025. In
fact, the externment order was already passed and,
therefore, this statement that the proposal was cancelled,
is not correct. The last averment in Paragraph-3 is of
some significance and, therefore, it is reproduced as
follows :
“The Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 are the
preamble introduction to the grounds of
detention and the said facts mentioned in
para No. 2 and 3 are not only relied upon
by me while forming my subjective
satisfaction to issue the present order of
3 of 9
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 4 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt
detention against you.” (Emphasis
supplied)
iv.
Paragraph-4 refers to the offence i.e. C.R. No.1218/2025
registered at Narpoli police station on 1.11.2025 under
Section 127(2), 308(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS read with
Sections 142, 37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act
read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
This offence is in respect of the incident that had taken
place at around 3.00 p.m. on 1.11.2025 when the
Petitioner had abused and threatened the complainant
with a knife. The people in the locality had got scared. In
that case, the Petitioner was shown as wanted accused as
is mentioned in the ground in the Paragraph-4(a).
v. Paragraph-5(A) is in respect of the in-camera statement
of witness ‘A’, which was recorded on 2.11.2025 in
respect of the offence that had taken place at around
8.00 p.m. in the fourth week of October, 2025 when the
Petitioner had forcefully removed Rs.400/- from that
witness.
4 of 9
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 5 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt
The in-camera statement of witness ‘B’
recorded on 3.11.2025 is in respect of the incident that
had taken place at 8.30 p.m. in the third week of
October. At that time the Petitioner had removed
Rs.300/- forcefully from that witness.
vi. Paragraph-6 of the grounds records that from these facts,
he was satisfied that the Petitioner was a “dangerous
person” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of MPDA
Act. The action taken against him under the normal law
of the land is found to be insufficient and ineffective to
deter him from indulging in criminal activities prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order.
vii. Paragraph-7 mentions that the preventive actions under
Cr.P.C. and Maharashtra Police Act taken against him are
proved to be futile to prevent him from indulging in such
activities.
viii. Paragraph-9 mentions that he had taken into
consideration all the aspects and intensity of the criminal
activities of the Petitioner and that he had also examined
5 of 9
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 6 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt
the question as to whether prosecuting him would yield
desired result.
ix. Paragraph-10 mentions that the records relating to issue
in grounds 4 & 5 were produced before the Detaining
Authority and that he was satisfied that the Petitioner
was a “dangerous person” as defined under MPDA Act
and he being free at large is prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order in the city. The normal laws
were just insufficient to curb his criminal and dangerous
activities as the witnesses were unwilling to come
forward and depose against him.
4.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the averments, in different paragraphs regarding the
subjective satisfaction, are contrary and that has caused
prejudice to the Petitioner in making earliest effective
representation. The contrary averments have created
confusion. She submitted that paragraph-3 specifically
mentions that the material mentioned in paragraphs-2 & 3
were not only relied upon by him while forming subjective
6 of 9
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 7 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt
satisfaction which would mean that besides the material in
paragraphs-2 & 3 he had also relied on the material in
paragraphs-4 & 5 i.e. C.R. No.1218/2025 of Narpoli Police
Station and two in-camera statements. The Detaining Authority
was not very clear as to on what material he had reached this
subjective satisfaction.
5.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the
observations of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
1
Yash Raju Mhaskar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Thane and others .
She relied on the observations in paragraph-10 wherein a
similar subjective satisfaction was considered by this Court and
the similar averments were specifically considered by the Court
in reaching a conclusion that there were contrary averments for
reaching the subjective satisfaction on the part of the Detaining
Authority.
6.
The learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that
the Detaining Authority was very specific in mentioning that he
had relied on the material mentioned in grounds (4) & (5) i.e.
C.R. No.1218/2025 of Narpoli Police Station and two in-
1 Dated 10.7.2026 in Criminal WP/5298/2025
7 of 9
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 8 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt
camera statements. He has specifically stated so in
paragraph-10.
7.
We have considered these submissions. We have
reproduced what the Detaining Authority has stated in
paragraph-3. The averment is quite clear. It mentions that the
facts mentioned in paragraphs-2 & 3 were not only relied by
him while forming his subjective satisfaction. That would mean
that he in fact took into consideration the previous offence and
preventive actions taken against the Petitioner while forming
his subjective satisfaction. This particular averment is contrary
to his other averments in paragraph-10. This has caused
confusion and has affected the Petitioner’s valuable right of
making earliest effective representation.
8.
A similar view was taken in the judgment of Yash
Mhaskar ’s case referred to hereinabove.
9.
Considering these aspects, the impugned detention
order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
10.
Hence, the following order:
8 of 9
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02

: 9 : 308-wp-1852-26.odt
:: O R D E R ::
i. The Petition is allowed.
ii. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b),
which reads as follows :
“b. The order of detention bearing D.O. No.TC/
PD/DO/MPDA/29/2025 dated 10.12.2025 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;”
iii. The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in
any other case.
iv. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Digitally signed by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date: 2026.10.21 19:55:46
+0530
9 of 9
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 20:12:02
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)