Bombay HC Upholds Pune Bootlegger’s Detention, Citing In-Camera Accounts Of Illicit Liquor-Making And Threats

01Facts

The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, passed a detention order against the Petitioner under the MPDA Act on 2 January 2026 and directed his detention at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Central Prison.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The order relied on C.R. No. 308/2025, registered under Section 65(f)(b)(c) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and two verified in-camera statements.

p. 3 · ¶ 6–7, 13

The Petitioner had not been arrested in the registered offence; he received a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

The statements described his alleged illicit-liquor activities and threats or assault against persons who objected to them.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–12

The Petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that his non-arrest showed detention was unnecessary and that the statements did not support the bootlegging allegation.

p. 2 · ¶ 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the Petitioner’s non-arrest in the registered offence showed that preventive detention was unnecessary.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

ii.Whether the in-camera statements could support the detention order as evidence of the Petitioner’s bootlegging activities and their effect on public order.

p. 2 · ¶ 4 · 5–7 · ¶ 10–18

03Law Applied

Section 2(b) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA Act) defines a “bootlegger” to include a person who, in contravention of law, distils, manufactures, stores, transports, sells or distributes liquor or supports or abets those activities.

p. 6 · ¶ 15

Under Section 2(a)(ii), a bootlegger acts prejudicially to the maintenance of public order when the person engages, or prepares to engage, in bootlegging activities that adversely affect, or are likely adversely to affect, public order.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 16

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 35

04Reasoning

The Court found that the registered offence concerned a raid on an illicit-liquor distillation site, where chemicals and equipment were seized and the Petitioner allegedly fled.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–9

It held that the two in-camera statements also concerned illicit-liquor activity: one described the Petitioner making illicit liquor and assaulting and threatening a witness who objected; the other described the Petitioner and his brother threatening a person who sought to stop the activity.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–12

The Assistant Commissioner of Police had verified both statements.

p. 5 · ¶ 13

The Court therefore concluded that the material supported the finding that the Petitioner was a bootlegger whose activities adversely affected public order; his non-arrest in the registered offence did not displace that conclusion.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 14, 17–18