Post-bail incidents may independently sustain preventive detention where ordinary criminal law has failed to curb prejudicial activities.

The Commissioner of Police, Brihanmumbai, ordered the petitioner’s preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (“MPDA Act”) on 26 December 2025.

The detention grounds relied on a registered offence arising from an alleged assault with a sickle on 8 August 2025, committed while an externment order was in force, and two later alleged incidents of robbery and threats described in in-camera witness statements recorded on 19 and 21 November 2025.

The petitioner had been released on bail in the registered offence on 11 November 2025.

He challenged the detention order, arguing, among other things, that the authority had not considered the reasons for bail, that ordinary criminal-law remedies were available, that the incidents did not affect public order, and that the order was delayed.

Whether the detention order was invalid because the authority did not consider the reasons for granting bail or pursue cancellation of bail instead of preventive detention.

Whether the material relied on by the authority supported its satisfaction that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that ordinary law was insufficient.

Whether the period between the last in-camera statement and the detention order amounted to an unexplained delay.

The MPDA Act, including the definition of a “dangerous person” in Section 2(b-1), permits preventive detention where the detaining authority is subjectively satisfied that the person’s activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The Court assessed whether the material supported that satisfaction, whether ordinary criminal-law measures were adequate in the circumstances, and whether the interval in processing the detention proposal was reasonably explained.

The petitioner relied on Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1315, concerning, as presented in argument, the use of preventive detention where ordinary criminal-law remedies may address the apprehended conduct.

The Court held that the State could not effectively seek cancellation of bail because the witnesses were unwilling to make statements against the petitioner; moreover, the bail condition concerning threats or pressure applied to witnesses in that particular case and did not cover his other activities.

The two in-camera incidents, which occurred after his release on bail, could independently support the authority’s satisfaction, while the registered offence committed in breach of the externment order supported the conclusion that ordinary legal measures had not curbed his conduct.

The Court also found the interval reasonable because the last statement was recorded on 21 November 2025 and time was required to verify the statements, collect material, formulate grounds, and issue the order on 26 December 2025.

The writ petition was dismissed and the rule discharged.