01Facts
The Petitioner challenged a detention order dated 18 July 2026, passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act), and the consequential committal order.
¶ 2, 15The State Government’s approval order dated 28 July 2026 specified detention for 60 days from arrest, while its confirmation order dated 11 September 2026 directed detention for six months from actual detention.
¶ 4, 11, 13The grounds of detention supplied in English and Marathi also differed materially in paragraph 8: the English version referred to C.R. No. 173 of 2026, while the Marathi version referred to C.R. No. 258 of 2026.
¶ 11The Petitioner argued that the differing detention periods and grounds demonstrated non-application of mind and impaired his ability to make an effective representation.
¶ 11–1202Issues
i.1. Whether the State Government’s confirmation of detention for six months, after approving detention for 60 days and without explaining the change, demonstrated non-application of mind.
¶ 11, 13ii.2. Whether the material discrepancy between the English and Marathi versions of the grounds of detention impaired the Petitioner’s right to make an earliest effective representation and rendered the detention order unsustainable.
¶ 11, 1403Law Applied
The detention order was made under Section 3 of the MPDA Act, 1981.
¶ 15The Court applied the principles that a decision confirming preventive detention must reflect application of mind, including where the stated period of detention changes, and that the grounds of detention must be sufficiently consistent to preserve the detenu’s valuable right to make an earliest effective representation.
¶ 13–14Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. Section 12
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 35Section 129
04Reasoning
The approval order specified 60 days’ detention, but the confirmation order extended detention to six months without referring to the earlier period or giving reasons for the change; the Court found no intervening circumstances to justify the extension and held that this showed non-application of mind.
¶ 13Separately, the English and Marathi versions identified different offences in paragraph 8, creating a serious discrepancy that also impaired the Petitioner’s ability to make an earliest effective representation.
¶ 14These defects rendered the detention order unsustainable.
¶ 1505Holding
The Court answered both issues in the Petitioner’s favour and quashed and set aside the detention order.
¶ 15It directed that the Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, made the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), and disposed of the petition.
¶ 15Original Court PDF
Yakub Alias Munna Mustafa ShaikhvsCommissioner Of Police And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
