Preventive detention cannot rest on a bare assumption that the detenu will obtain bail.

The Petitioner challenged the detention order dated 6 December 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (“MPDA Act”), along with the committal order directing his detention in Nagpur Central Prison.

The grounds of detention referred to the Petitioner’s past criminal history, three earlier registered offences, prior preventive proceedings, three recent offences registered in 2025, and two in-camera witness statements alleging robbery by use of sharp weapons.

The Detaining Authority recorded that the Petitioner was a “dangerous person” and that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Sections 2(b-1) and 2(a)(iv) of the MPDA Act.

The Petitioner had been granted bail in two of the recent offences, while his bail application in the third offence was pending when the detention order was passed.

The Detaining Authority stated that he was likely to be released on bail because the offence was not compulsorily punishable with death.

The Petitioner contended that the grounds contained contradictory statements, reflected non-application of mind, failed to properly justify the likelihood of release on bail, and disregarded an existing preventive bond.

The State defended the detention order, asserting that the Authority had relied only on the recent offences and in-camera statements and that prior preventive measures had proved insufficient.

Whether the contradictory statements in paragraphs 2 and 8 of the grounds of detention, including the reference to an offence of attempt to murder not found in the cited offences, vitiated the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction and impaired the Petitioner’s right to make an effective representation.

Whether the failure to appropriately consider the subsisting preventive bond and the discrepancy regarding withdrawal of the preventive proceedings demonstrated non-application of mind.

Whether the Detaining Authority validly recorded the Petitioner’s likelihood of release on bail merely on the basis that the pending offence was not compulsorily punishable with death.

The Court applied Sections 2(a)(iv) and 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, which require the Detaining Authority to establish that the person is a “dangerous person” and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Preventive detention grounds must be clear, consistent, and based on proper application of mind so as to preserve the detenue’s constitutional right to make the earliest effective representation.

Where detention is based on the likelihood that a person in custody will be released on bail, that likelihood must be supported by cogent material and not by a bare or mechanical assumption.

The Court relied on Aman Yusuf Pathan @ Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1722 of 2024, decided on 6 August 2024, and Aman Shakir Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 6037 of 2024, decided on 21 February 2025, which held that the mere fact that an offence is not compulsorily punishable with death is insufficient to establish the likelihood of release on bail.

The Court also considered the relevance of available ordinary preventive measures, including action for breach of a subsisting bond under Section 141(1)(a)–(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court found that paragraph 2 of the detention grounds independently recorded the subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was a dangerous person and that his activities prejudicially affected public order, relying on his past offences.

This was inconsistent with paragraph 8, which stated that the satisfaction was based only on the three recent offences and two in-camera statements.

The reference in paragraph 2 to an attempt-to-murder offence was unsupported by any of the offences cited in the grounds and consequently demonstrated non-application of mind.

These inconsistencies impaired the Petitioner’s ability to make an effective representation.

The Court further noted that a preventive bond executed on 25 November 2024 for two years was still subsisting when the detention order was passed.

The authorities did not explain why action for breach of that bond was not taken.

The unexplained discrepancy between the English and Marathi grounds concerning the date of withdrawal of the preventive proceedings further weakened the detention order.

Finally, the Authority’s conclusion that the Petitioner was likely to obtain bail rested solely on the fact that the pending offence was not punishable with mandatory death.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court held that this was not cogent material establishing a real likelihood of release on bail.

The detention order therefore suffered from material inconsistencies, non-application of mind, and an inadequate basis for the subjective satisfaction required under the MPDA Act.

The detention order was set aside, and the Petitioner was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

The Rule was made absolute and the petition was disposed of accordingly.