Bombay HC Upholds Bootlegger’s Detention After 3 Liquor Cases During Interim Bond And Later Threats To Two Witnesses

In brief

The question

Whether the Petitioner’s activities, considered with the prior preventive action and the in-camera statements, justified preventive detention on the basis that ordinary law was insufficient to curb them

The court held

The Court rejected the challenge, finding no infirmity in the detention order

It also directed

It dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule

01Facts

The Petitioner challenged a detention order dated 30 December 2025 made by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad, under which he was directed to be detained in Kolhapur Central Prison

¶ 1

The grounds referred to five offences registered at Hinjawadi Police Station between 11 March and 31 July 2025 under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act; three of those offences were specifically relied on for the detention order

¶ 6–8

The Petitioner had executed an interim bond under Section 93 of that Act on 26 June 2025, but the proceedings were discontinued on 28 August 2025

¶ 3, 6

He was arrested in the third relied-on offence and released on bail three days later

¶ 8

The detention grounds also relied on two in-camera witness statements recorded on 27 and 29 November 2025, describing incidents in September and October 2025

¶ 7, 9–10

02Issues

i.Whether the Petitioner’s activities, considered with the prior preventive action and the in-camera statements, justified preventive detention on the basis that ordinary law was insufficient to curb them

¶ 3–5, 11–13

ii.Whether the in-camera statements recorded several months after the last registered offence undermined the detention order for want of a continuing live link

¶ 4, 9–11

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 2(b) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (“MPDA Act”), which defines a “bootlegger” by reference to specified liquor-related activities contrary to law

¶ 11–12

Section 2(a)(ii), under which a bootlegger’s activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when they adversely affect, or are likely adversely to affect, public order

¶ 11–12

The judgment also considered the offences under Section 65(e) and the preventive action under Section 93 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, as well as the service of notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

¶ 3, 6, 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 35

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Petitioner continued his illicit-liquor activities after executing the interim bond, as shown by three further offences registered in July 2025

¶ 6, 8, 11

It also relied on the witness accounts of threats and violence in September and October 2025, which occurred after the Petitioner’s release on bail in the last relied-on offence

¶ 9–11

Taken together, the Court considered these events evidence of a continuing live link and concluded that the preventive bond and ordinary criminal process had not curbed the activities

¶ 11

It held that the conduct fell within the MPDA Act’s definitions of a bootlegger and bootlegging activity prejudicial to public order, and that the detention order had been passed after the necessary procedure and on sufficient grounds

¶ 11–13