Bombay HC Upholds MPDA Detention, Rejects Fabrication Claim: Witnesses Came Forward Months After Alleged Attacks

In brief

The question

1. Whether the delay between the alleged incidents, the recording of the in-camera statements, and the passing of the detention order rendered the order invalid.

The court held

The Court held that the Petitioner’s challenges disclosed no merit.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the writ petition, discharging the Rule.

01Facts

The Petitioner challenged a detention order dated 12 February 2026, passed by the District Magistrate, Pune under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (“MPDA”).

¶ 1, 3

The grounds relied on one registered offence arising from an alleged group assault on 23 September 2025 and two in-camera witness statements, recorded on 5 and 11 December 2025, concerning alleged incidents on 10 September and 28 August 2025.

¶ 4, 6

The grounds also referred to the Petitioner’s past criminal history and an earlier MPDA detention order dated 9 June 2025.

¶ 5

The Petitioner argued that the in-camera statements were fabricated after his release on bail on 25 November 2025 and that the delay in recording them and passing the detention order undermined the order; he also contended that the earlier detention order’s setting aside was not explained.

¶ 6, 10

The State opposed the petition, relying on the witnesses’ reluctance to come forward and the verification of their statements by a superior police officer.

¶ 7, 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the delay between the alleged incidents, the recording of the in-camera statements, and the passing of the detention order rendered the order invalid.

¶ 6–8

ii.2. Whether the in-camera statements were falsely or deliberately created by the authorities to support the detention order.

¶ 6, 9–10

iii.3. Whether the Petitioner’s release on bail before the statements were recorded, or the reference to the earlier detention order, undermined the detention order.

¶ 6, 10

03Law Applied

The detention order was made under Section 3(1) of the MPDA, which the judgment identifies as the statutory basis for the order.

¶ 3

The Detaining Authority recorded its satisfaction that the Petitioner was a “dangerous person” within Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA and that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

¶ 5

The Court considered whether the delay was adequately explained by the timing of the authorities’ knowledge of the incidents and whether the in-camera statements had been verified by the competent superior authority.

¶ 8, 10

The judgment cites no judicial precedents.

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 9 provisions

Section 109 Section 118 Section 326 Section 333 Section 189 Section 191 Section 190 Section 352 Section 351

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 110

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the delay challenge because, although the incidents occurred in August and September 2025, the authorities learned of them only when the witnesses came forward in December 2025; the Court accepted that witnesses had been reluctant to report because of the Petitioner’s alleged reign of terror and found that the authorities acted thereafter to initiate the detention proceedings.

¶ 8

It also rejected the fabrication allegation, noting that the statements had been verified by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Junnar, who recorded his satisfaction that the incidents were true.

¶ 9–10

The fact that the statements were recorded after the Petitioner’s release on bail did not, by itself, establish that they were false or deliberately created.

¶ 10