1 of 7 307-wp-1368-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1368 OF 2026 Sachin Raghunath Patil ..Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Police, Thane & Anr. ..Respondents __________ Mr. Rahul Arote a/w. Jay Suryawanshi, Nikita Gawai and Megha Shelke for Petitioner. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for State/Respondent. __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE : 24 SEPTEMBER 2026 JUDGMENT : (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 1. The Petitioner has challenged the Detention order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane- Respondent No.1. The Petitioner is detained in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune by separate Committal order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the same authority. 2. Heard Mr. Rahul Arote, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.V. Gavand, learned APP for the State. Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2026.09.28 17:37:30 +0530 2 of 7 307-wp-1368-26 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.1 has given a list of four registered offences and two preventive actions taken against the Petitioner right from the year 2022, but no material is provided in respect of those offences and preventive actions. This is important, because, in paragraph-3, the Detaining Authority has mentioned that the facts mentioned in those paragraphs were not only relied by him while forming his subjective satisfaction, but he has given further list of the offences and ‘in-camera’ statements in paragraphs-4 and 5. Paragraph-4 refers to C.R.No.739 of 2025 registered at Shil-Daighar police station on 12.07.2025 and paragraph-5 refers to two ‘in-camera’ statements. He submitted that the Detaining Authority has, thus, created a confusion as to whether he has relied on the past history or only on one registered offence and two ‘in-camera’ statements. The Detaining Authority has not provided any material in respect of the four offences and two preventive actions mentioned in paragraph-3 of the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention specifically mentions the records relating to grounds in paragraphs-4 and 5 which were produced before the Detaining 3 of 7 307-wp-1368-26 Authority. The material in respect of the other offences were not produced before the Detaining Authority. He, therefore, submitted that, on all these counts, the Detention order is unsustainable. 4. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that, paragraph-3 of the grounds of detention mentions that the past history mentioned in paragraphs-2 and 3 was the preamble introduction and it was not relied upon by the Detaining Authority while forming the subjective satisfaction. 5. We have considered these submissions. The Petitioner is served with the grounds of detention on 13.10.2025 which run into 17 paragraphs. Paragraph-2 records that the Petitioner was a violent type of dangerous criminal having taken to the life of a criminal for the sake of easy money and to show his upper hand in the areas within the jurisdiction of Shil-Daighar police station in Thane Commissionarate. The said paragraph and paragraph-3 further added that the Petitioner was moving in the above areas armed with different kinds of weapons and committed crimes like threatening, hurt, abusing, extortion, attempt to commit murder, 4 of 7 307-wp-1368-26 rioting etc. All these cases fall under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC, Chapter VI, XIII, XIX of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Chapter V of the Arms Act. The action of detention taken against him is on the basis of the offences registered under sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 324(5), 324(6), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS r/w. Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. Paragraph-3 thereafter mentions four offences registered at Shil-Daighar police station as follows: i) C.R.No.12 of 2022 registered at Shil-Daighar police station, on 13.01.2022, under sections 143, 144, 148, 447, 387, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. ii) C.R.No.42 of 2022 registered at Shil-Daighar police station, on 08.02.2022, under sections 324, 143, 148, 149 504 and 506 of the IPC. iii) C.R.No.12 of 2023 registered at Shil-Daighar police station, on 07.01.2023, under sections 324, 323 and 504 of the IPC. iv) C.R.No.93 of 2023 registered at Shil-Daighar police station, on 03.03.2023, under sections 307, 326, 385, 504, 34 of the IPC. All these offences were in the nature of extortion, causing hurt and attempt to commit murder. The same paragraph refers to two preventive actions taken under section 110(e)(g) of 5 of 7 307-wp-1368-26 the Cr.PC and U/s.56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Importantly, paragraph-3 ends with the following averment: “The Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 are the preamble introduction to the grounds of detention and the said facts mentioned in para No.2 and 3 are not only relied upon by the Detaining Authority while forming his subjective satisfaction to issue the present Detention order.” 6. Paragraph-4 then refers to C.R.No.739 of 2025 registered at Shil-Daighar police station, on 12.07.2025. Paragraph-5 refers to two ‘in-camera’ statements. Thus, reading paragraph Nos.3 and 4 together makes it clear that the Detaining Authority has not only relied upon the past history mentioned in paragraph-3, but has also relied on the material mentioned in paragraphs-4 and 5. 7. Paragraph-4 refers to C.R.No.739 of 2025 in respect of the incident dated 11.07.2025. In that incident, the Petitioner had threatened the complainant and had damaged his vehicle. He had threatened two people going on the motorcycle. The ‘in-camera’ statements referred to two incidents which had taken place in July 2025 and August 2025. They are also in the nature of extortion. 6 of 7 307-wp-1368-26 8. Therefore, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Detaining Authority has based his subjective satisfaction not only on the material referred to in paragraphs-4 and 5 i.e. C.R.No.739 of 2025 and two ‘in- camera’ statements, but also on the past history mentioned in paragraph-3 referred to herein above. The Petitioner is not supplied with any document in respect of the material mentioned in paragraph-3 i.e. registered offences in the year 2022 and 2023, and two preventive actions. This has created confusion and has deprived the petitioner from making earliest effective representation before the Authorities. This has affected his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable and is required to be set aside. 9. Hence, the following order: O R D E R i) The Detention order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1, bearing No.TC/ PD/ DO/ MPDA/ 23/ 2025 is set aside. 7 of 7 307-wp-1368-26 ii) The Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. iv) The writ petition is disposed of. (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)