Bombay HC Quashes Detention Of Man Over Bootlegging, Finding Police Dropped His Active-Bond Case To Pursue Detention

The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, passed a preventive detention order against the Petitioner on 23 January 2026 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981; a separate order directed detention at Nashik Central Prison.

The grounds relied on, among other material, an August 2025 prohibition offence allegedly committed while a one-year bond executed by the Petitioner on 25 March 2025 was in force, and two in-camera witness statements concerning incidents in November 2025.

The grounds also recorded that the Chapter Case relating to the bond had been withdrawn under Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to initiate “more effective action”. The Petitioner challenged the detention order by writ petition.

Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, was the statutory basis for the impugned preventive detention order.

The Court considered Section 141(1)(b) of the BNSS in relation to the alleged commission of an offence during the period of a bond, and Sections 93 and 137 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and BNSS, respectively, as referred to in the grounds of detention.

The Court’s reasoning was that, in the circumstances of this case, the authorities should have considered the statutory action available for the alleged breach of bond; the recorded withdrawal of the Chapter Case to pursue “more effective action” also supported the conclusion that the detention decision was predetermined.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court found that the prohibition offence relied on by the Detaining Authority occurred on 7 August 2025, while the bond executed on 25 March 2025 remained in force for one year. It held that the authorities should have taken steps under Section 141(1)(b) of the BNSS but instead proceeded to preventive detention.

The Court also treated the stated purpose of withdrawing the Chapter Case—to take “more effective action”—as evidence that the authorities had resolved to pursue detention. It further noted that the in-camera statements were recorded after the withdrawal in relation to later incidents, supporting its concern that the material was assembled to advance that course of action.

It made the Rule absolute, quashed and set aside the detention order, and directed that the Petitioner be released forthwith unless required in another case.