Pune Man’s Detention Set Aside By Bombay HC Over Conflicting Grounds And Bail Prediction Based Solely On Offence Not Mandatorily Punishable By Death

The Petitioner challenged a detention order dated 30 December 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, and a separate committal order directing his detention at Nashik Road Central Prison.

The grounds of detention referred to the Petitioner’s past registered offences and preventive actions, as well as a 2025 registered offence and two in-camera witness statements.

The Petitioner argued that the grounds inconsistently identified the material supporting the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction and that the conclusion that he was likely to obtain bail lacked cogent material, particularly because his bail application had been rejected.

The State opposed the petition.

1. Whether the grounds of detention were vitiated by inconsistent statements about the material on which the Detaining Authority relied, thereby impairing the Petitioner’s ability to make an effective representation.

2. Whether the Detaining Authority’s satisfaction that the Petitioner was likely to be released on bail was supported by cogent material.

Section 2(b-1) of the applicable Act defines a “dangerous person” by reference to habitual commission, attempted commission, or abetment of specified offences under Chapters XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter V of the Arms Act.

Section 2(a)(iv) concerns a dangerous person engaging, or preparing to engage, in activities that adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order.

A detention order must rest on the Detaining Authority’s satisfaction that the statutory conditions are met.

Where the proposed detainee is already in custody, a conclusion that he is likely to be released on bail must be supported by cogent material; the fact that the offence is not compulsorily punishable with death is, by itself, insufficient.

The Court applied the Division Bench’s decision in Aman Yusuf Pathan @ Khan v. Commissioner of Police and Others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1722 of 2024, order dated 6 August 2024.

The Court found that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the grounds relied on the Petitioner’s past activities and preventive actions to characterise him as a dangerous person whose activities prejudiced public order.

However, paragraph 8 stated that the subjective satisfaction was based on the current registered offence and the two in-camera statements, creating an inconsistency about the basis of detention. The Court held that this inconsistency caused confusion and affected the Petitioner’s ability to make an earliest effective representation, and also demonstrated non-application of mind.

Separately, the Detaining Authority’s prediction of future bail rested on the fact that the offence was not compulsorily punishable with death, despite the Petitioner being in custody and his bail application having been rejected. Applying Aman Yusuf Pathan, the Court held that this was not cogent material to support the prediction.

It allowed the petition, set aside the detention order dated 30 December 2025, and directed that the Petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case; the Rule was made absolute accordingly.