1 of 7 309-wp-1470-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1470 OF 2026 Sneha Pravin Chavan ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents __________ Mr. Ishan Paradkar a/w. Satyavrat Joshi, Yash Fadtare and Ms. Nawaz Dordi for Petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, 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 20.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune- Respondent No.2. By a separate Committal order, the Detenue i.e. the husband of the Petitioner was directed to be detained in Buldhana Prison, Buldhana. 2. Heard Mr. Ishan Paradkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the State. Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2026.09.29 10:42:55 +0530 2 of 7 309-wp-1470-26 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the grounds of detention referred to one registered offence and two ‘in-camera’ statements, based on which the Detention order is passed. However, none of these instances show that the Petitioner’s husband i.e. the Detenue was indulging in any of the activities which were termed as gambling activities within the meaning Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981 (for short ‘MPDA Act’). He, therefore, submitted that the Detention order is bad because it is not based on cogent material; which shows non application of mind on the part of the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that, he was arrested in the registered offence and was granted bail which shows that he was indulging in gambling activities. The ‘in-camera’ statements also show that he was indulging in gambling activities and, therefore, the Detention order is proper. 5. We have considered these submissions. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provision 3 of 7 309-wp-1470-26 under the MPDA Act in respect of the gambling activities. The relevant provision is U/s.2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act, reads as follows: “2. Definitions (a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” means- (vi) in the case of a person engaged in illegal gambling or illegal lottery, when he is engaged or is making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as a person, engaged in illegal gambling or illegal lottery, which affects adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order.” 6. Thus, if the order is passed because the Detenue’s activities fall within Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act, then the provisions of that section are required to be fulfilled. The said definition refers to illegal gambling activities or to his making preparations for engaging in any of these activities. 7. The grounds of detention provided to the Detenue specifically refers to Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act, under which the Detention order was passed. 4 of 7 309-wp-1470-26 8. The grounds of detention runs into 15 paragraphs. Paragraph-3 refers to five registered offences at Samarth police station from the year 2020 to 2025. All these offences were registered U/s.12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. On all these occasions, he was arrested, but was served with the Notice, either U/s.41(a)(1) of the Cr.PC or U/s.35(3) of the BNSS. There is a reference to two preventive actions taken in the past. The second preventive action was withdrawn. The Detention order, however, was based on C.R.No.256 of 2025 registered at Samarth Police station on 17.11.2025, U/s.12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, U/s.4(25) of the Arms Act and U/s.37(1)(3) r/w. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, as well as, on two ‘in-camera’ statements of Witness ‘A’ and Witness ‘B’. In C.R.No.256 of 2025, the Detenue was arrested on 18.11.2025 and was released on bail on 26.11.2025. 9. C.R.No.256 of 2025 referred to the incident dated 17.11.2025. On that day, one Audumbar Sonawane was stopped within the limits of Samarth police station, as he was moving suspiciously. He admitted that, he was accepting gambling bets. At 5 of 7 309-wp-1470-26 that time, the Detenue was not present, but the said Audumbar Sonawane told the police that he was accepting bets on behalf of the Detenue. The investigation was carried out. A copy of the charge-sheet is annexed to the grounds of detention. There is no independent evidence to show that the Detenue was found indulging in gambling activities. His house search showed that he had cash around Rs.2 lakhs and a sword in his possession, but there was no apparatus or material relating to gambling anywhere. The charge-sheet does not indicate that the Detenue was conducting any gaming house. In short, the entire material in the charge-sheet does not show as to how it can be said that the Detenue was indulging in gambling activities. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority does not refer to any particular material to reach his satisfaction as to how the Detenue was indulging in gambling activities. 10. Witness ‘A’ has stated about the incident dated 02.12.2025. The Detenue wanted the Witness ‘A’ to use his money in his gambling activities. When the witness refused, the Detenue assaulted him. Here also, Witness ‘A’ had not seen any activities 6 of 7 309-wp-1470-26 which would be in the nature of gambling activities. The grievance was about the assault. 11. Witness ‘B’ spoke about the incident dated 05.12.2025. In this incident also, the said witness was threatened. He has also not referred to any gambling activities. Thus, the activities attributed to the Detenue by these witnesses may amount to other offences, but there is no direct material showing that he was actually involved in gambling activities within the meaning of Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act. The Detaining Authority has not applied his mind to this aspect and there is no cogent material referred to by him in that regard. 12. Thus, we find that the material on record does not attract Section 2(a)(vi) of the MPDA Act. Therefore, the Detention order is not sustainable. 13. Hence, the following order: O R D E R i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 7 of 7 309-wp-1470-26 (b); which reads as follows: “(b) The Detention Order No. OW.No./CRIME PCB/DET/SAMARTH/CHAVHAN/165/2024 dated 20.02.2026 issued under Section 3 of M.P.D.A. Act 1981 by the Respondent No.2 against the husband of the Petitioner be quashed and set aside and on quashing the same, the husband of the Petitioner be ordered to be released forthwith.” ii) The Detenue be released forthwith if not required in any other case. iii) The writ petition is disposed of. (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)