Bombay HC Orders Thane Detenu Freed Unless Held In Another Case, Finding Conflicting Detention Grounds Impaired His Right To Make An Effective Representation

The Commissioner of Police, Thane, ordered the petitioner’s preventive detention under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act), and directed his detention at Nashik Road Central Prison

The grounds referred to his prior criminal cases and preventive action, including externment, as well as a recent registered offence and two in-camera witness statements

In paragraph 3 of the grounds, the Detaining Authority stated that the facts in paragraphs 2 and 3 were “not only relied upon” in forming subjective satisfaction; paragraph 10, however, referred to the material in grounds 4 and 5 as the basis for that satisfaction

The petitioner challenged the detention order, contending that these statements were contradictory and impaired his ability to make an effective representation

Whether the statements in the grounds of detention about the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority were contradictory and created uncertainty about the basis of its subjective satisfaction

Whether that uncertainty prejudiced the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation and rendered the detention order unsustainable

Section 3 of the MPDA Act authorises preventive detention, including detention of a person considered a “dangerous person” under Section 2(b-1)

The grounds must clearly communicate the basis of the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction so that the detainee can make an effective representation; material ambiguity or contradictory statements about what was relied upon may impair that right and undermine the detention order

The Court also relied on Yash Raju Mhaskar v. Commissioner of Police, Thane and Others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 5298 of 2025 (decided 10 July 2026), which addressed similar statements concerning subjective satisfaction

The Court read paragraph 3 as indicating that the material in paragraphs 2 and 3—concerning prior offences and preventive action—was among the matters relied upon in forming subjective satisfaction. That statement conflicted with paragraph 10, which referred to the records relating to grounds 4 and 5, namely the recent offence and the two in-camera statements