Nashik Bootlegger’s Detention Stands: Bombay HC Cites Two Fresh Liquor Cases And Witness Accounts Of Local Fear

The Commissioner of Police, Nashik City, issued a detention order against the Petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act), on 22 December 2025.

The grounds relied on two 2025 offences alleging the sale of illicit liquor, two verified in-camera witness statements describing disturbance and intimidation in the locality, and chemical-analysis reports indicating hazardous alcohol content.

The grounds also referred to earlier criminal cases and a prior detention order, which had resulted in the Petitioner’s release by the High Court.

The Petitioner challenged the fresh detention order, arguing, among other things, that the earlier detention history had influenced the decision and that the ordinary criminal law had not been shown to be inadequate.

Whether the reference to the Petitioner’s prior cases and earlier detention order rendered the fresh detention order invalid, notwithstanding the Detaining Authority’s statement that it relied on subsequent incidents.

Whether the absence of arrest in the two registered offences showed that ordinary criminal law was sufficient, making preventive detention unwarranted.

Whether the material relied on by the Detaining Authority established that the Petitioner’s activities as a bootlegger were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act permits preventive detention on the statutory grounds it specifies. Under Section 2(b), a person who sells liquor in contravention of law may be a “bootlegger”; under Section 2(a)(ii), a bootlegger’s activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when they adversely affect, or are likely adversely to affect, public order.

The statutory explanation to Section 2(a) includes activities causing or likely to cause harm, danger, alarm, insecurity, or grave or widespread danger to life or public health.

In Ramesh v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 4 SCC 124, the Supreme Court considered the significance of criminal cases that had also formed part of an earlier quashed detention order.

In Vidyawant v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 5410 of 2026, decided 13 May 2026, the Court addressed the need for cogent material to justify preventive detention where ordinary law may suffice, including the relevance of the absence of efforts to arrest.

The Court distinguished Ramesh because the present order was expressly based on fresh incidents—two offences and two in-camera statements—not on the incidents underlying the earlier detention order; it therefore treated the past history as antecedent information rather than the basis of detention.

It distinguished Vidyawant because the grounds here described specific effects on public order, including fear, disturbance in the locality, and interference with residents’ lives; moreover, the decision rested not only on the two offences in which the Petitioner had not been arrested, but also on the verified witness statements describing later incidents.

The Court considered the successive incidents a continuing course of activity and relied on the chemical-analysis reports as further support for the danger posed to public health.

It dismissed the petition and discharged the rule.