Preventive detention quashed after Bombay High Court finds witness statements were recorded only after authorities had decided on stricter action against man

Facts

The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, made a detention order against the Petitioner on 24 December 2025 and directed his detention at Wardha District Prison

Source reference: p. 1, para. 1

The grounds referred to a 2024 chapter case, a 2025 registered offence involving an alleged firearm, and two in-camera witness statements concerning alleged extortion incidents on 22 October and 1 November 2025

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 5–7

The Petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that the preventive action had been withdrawn on 23 September 2025 to enable more stringent action and that the later in-camera statements were recorded to create grounds for detention

Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 3–4

Issues

Whether the detention order was based on genuine material and made bona fide, given the sequence of the preventive action and the recording of the in-camera statements

Source reference: pp. 4–5, para. 8

Whether the detention order should be set aside on that basis

Source reference: p. 5, paras. 9–10

Law Applied

The Court applied the principle that a preventive detention order must rest on genuine material and bona fide satisfaction of the Detaining Authority; a record created to enable detention, or material whose genuineness is seriously doubtful, cannot sustain such an order

Source reference: p. 5, para. 8

The judgment refers to the preventive proceedings under Section 110(a), (e) and (g) of the CrPC, withdrawn under Section 137 of the BNSS, but cites no statutory detention provision or precedent as the basis for its decision

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 5, 8

Reasoning

The chapter case was withdrawn on 23 September 2025 with the stated purpose of taking more effective action, even though the two alleged incidents had not yet occurred and the corresponding statements were not recorded until 27 October and 4 November 2025

Source reference: pp. 4–5, para. 8

The Court considered this chronology significant: it supported the Petitioner’s contention that the later statements were generated to facilitate detention, making their genuineness—and the bona fides of the detention proceedings—extremely doubtful

Source reference: p. 5, para. 8

Holding

The Court held that the detention order was unsustainable and allowed the petition

It set aside the detention order dated 24 December 2025 and directed that the Petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case; the Rule was made absolute

Source reference: p. 6, para. 10