Continuous bootlegging activity affecting public order sustains preventive detention where the live link remains unbroken.

The Petitioner challenged a preventive-detention order dated 30 January 2026, passed by the District Magistrate, Pune, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (“MPDA Act”).

The grounds relied on several prohibition-related cases from 2020 to 2025, a preventive measure in 2024, and two confidential witness statements concerning alleged threats in November 2025.

In the most recent registered case, dated 16 December 2025, the Petitioner was arrested and later released on bail on 20 January 2026.

She was detained on 31 January 2026; the State approved the order, and the Government confirmed it after receiving the Advisory Board’s report.

The Petitioner challenged the order on grounds including non-application of mind, absence of a live link, lack of impact on public order, reliance on stale or allegedly fabricated material, and the availability of ordinary legal remedies.

Whether the Petitioner’s alleged activities as a bootlegger adversely affected, or were likely to affect, the maintenance of public order under the MPDA Act

Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind, a snapped live link, reliance on stale material, or failure to resort to ordinary law, including cancellation of bail

Section 2(b) of the MPDA Act defines a “bootlegger” to include a person who engages in specified activities involving liquor or intoxicants in contravention of law, or who supports or abets those activities.

Under Section 2(a)(ii), a bootlegger’s conduct is an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when the person is engaged, or preparing to engage, in bootlegging activities that adversely affect or are likely to affect public order.

The Court viewed the sequence of prohibition-related cases, the December 2025 case, and the November 2025 witness statements as evidence of continuing bootlegging activity, and held that the live link had not been snapped.

It treated the earlier cases as demonstrating continuity rather than as stale grounds for detention.

The recent case and witness statements supported the Detaining Authority’s assessment of the Petitioner’s current activities and their impact on public order.

The Court also rejected the argument that cancellation of bail was an adequate alternative, noting that witnesses were unwilling to complain and that the grounds and supporting material had been supplied to the Petitioner.

It dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule.