MPDA detention for illegal gambling requires cogent material showing gambling activity or preparations.

The Petitioner challenged the detention order dated 20 February 2026 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, against her husband under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (“MPDA Act”); he was separately directed to be detained at Buldhana Prison.

The detention relied on a registered offence and two in-camera statements. In the registered offence, the alleged betting collector said he accepted bets on the Detenu’s behalf, but the Detenu was not present, and the charge-sheet disclosed no independent evidence of his gambling activity or any gambling apparatus at his residence.

The in-camera witnesses described an assault and a threat, respectively, but neither described gambling activity by the Detenu.

1. Whether the material relied on by the Detaining Authority showed that the Detenu was engaged in, or preparing to engage in, illegal gambling activities within Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act

2. Whether the detention order was sustainable where the relied-on material did not establish the statutory gambling-related ground and the Detaining Authority had not demonstrated a cogent basis for its satisfaction

Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act defines prejudicial activity, in the case of a person engaged in illegal gambling or an illegal lottery, as engaging or making preparations to engage in such activities in a manner that affects, or is likely to affect, the maintenance of public order.

A detention order made on that ground must be supported by cogent material showing the person’s engagement in, or preparation for, the specified gambling activity; the Detaining Authority must apply its mind to whether the material satisfies that statutory requirement.

The Court examined the registered offence and the two in-camera statements against Section 2(a)(vi). The Detenu was absent from the alleged betting incident, and the charge-sheet disclosed no independent evidence that he conducted gambling or operated a gaming house; the cash and sword found at his residence did not establish gambling activity.

The witnesses’ accounts concerned an assault and a threat, not gambling or preparations for gambling.

The Court therefore found no cogent material connecting the Detenu to the statutory activity and held that the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind to that requirement.

It made the Rule absolute, quashed and set aside the detention order, and directed the Detenu’s immediate release unless required in another case; the petition was disposed of.