(1) Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 840 OF 2026 Sandeep Dhondiba More, Age : 25 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Bhangi, Tq. & Dist. Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The District Magistrate/ Collector, Nanded 3. Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. The Superintendent of Jail, Harsool Central Prison, Chh. Sambhajinagar 5. The Superintendent of Police Nanded 6. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub-Division, Itawara, Dist. Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS ….. Mr. Ranjit D. Gaikwad h/fMr. S.G. Kawade, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Govind A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 6. ….. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. RESERVED ON : 05.08.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 17.08.2026 (2) Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt FINAL ORDER (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 09.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Nanded in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “MPDA Act”) as well as the approval order of the State Government dated 18.02.2026 and confirmation order dated 12.05.2026 passed by respondent No.1-State, by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the following offences are registered and two preventive action is also taken against the petitioner. (3) Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt Sr . N o. Police Station C.R. No. & Under Section Date of Registration Present status 1 Nanded Rural 621/2023 u/s 379, 34 of IPC, 48(7) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 15(1) The Environment (Protection) Act. 24/08/2023 Pending trial 2 Malakoli 82/2025 u/s 303(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, 4, 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 03/05/2025 Pending trial 3 Loha 259/2025 u/s 303(2), 281, 285, 221, 126(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, 48(7), 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Act 1966 11/08/2025 Pending trial 4. Nanded Rural 1009/2025 u/s 303(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, 48(7), 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966, 9, 15(1) of The Environment (Protection) Act, 3, 7 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984. 20/10/2025 Under investigati on Preventive Action Sr. No. Police Station Chapter Case No. and u/s Date of registration Disposal 1 Nanded Rural 360/2023 u/s 107 of Cr. P. C 21/09/2023 Closed (4) Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt The detaining authority has considered the aforesaid two offences namely C.R. No. 259/2025 registered with Loha Police Station, under Sections 303(2), 281, 285,221,126(2), 3 (5) of BNS 48(7), 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code on 11.08.2025 and C.R. No. 1009 of 2025 registered with Nanded Rural Police Station, Dist. Nanded under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the BNS 2023, 48(7), 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966, 9,15 (1) of The Environment (Protection) Act, 3, 7 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 on 20.10.2025 to declare the petitioner as a “Sand Smuggler”. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though it is claimed that the petitioner is involved in sand smuggling, but there are only four offences registered against him. According to him, the material on record is definitely insufficient to hold that the present matter involves any breach of public order. Further, according to him, the statements of secret witnesses are stereotype in nature, which do not reflect any specific date of the incident. Thus, he prayed for setting-aside the impugned order of detention. He also relied following judgments of this Court, which is as under :- (i) Swapnil S/o Dilip Chaudante Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Cri. W. P. No. 1681 of 2025) (5) Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt (ii) Saisingh @ Sailala S/o Deepaksingh Geherwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Cri. W. P. 1394/25) (iii) Devidas Lalji Ade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ( Cri. W. P. 469 of 2022) (iv) Madhukar Aawba Hegade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others ( Cri. W. P. 1319 of 2025) (v) Tukaram Birappa Pujari Vs. The Commissioner of Police and others ( Cri. W. P. 2876 of 2024) 4. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by filing affidavit- in-reply of respondent No.2. According to him, the petitioner is definitely a “Sand Smuggler” within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. He pointed out that the petitioner is involved in sand smuggling, which is definitely against the public order as there are so many complaints of similar incidents against him. Moreover, as per the statements of secrete witnesses, the petitioner is involved in sand smuggling and even after preventive action, he continued his illegal activities as before. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Admittedly, there are only two crimes registered against the petitioner as aforesaid. Further, from those offences, it is (6) Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt evident that allegations of sand smuggling are there not only against him, but so many persons appeared to be involved in the same. The alleged criminal acts of the petitioner involves theft of sand, but it is equally important to note that despite registration of those offences, the petitioner was not even arrested and notice under Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was issued. It is important to note that, despite issuance of aforesaid notices, the detaining authority mentioned in the detention order that he was released on bail. This is complete non application of the mind on the part of the detaining authority. 6. Further, on perusal of statements of secret witnesses, it is clearly evident that they have only stated about the general criminal behaviour of the petitioner without quoting any specific date of incidents. Moreover, those statements are stereotype in nature, wherein it is vaguely mentioned that the petitioner is involved in sand smuggling. However, it is equally important to note that though it is claimed that he is involved in such crimes, but there is registration of three crimes against him in the year 2025 and only two of them are considered. Considering the nature of allegations in the F.I.R., in both these crimes, it is apparent that only question of law and order (7) Cri. W.P. 840-2026.odt may arise, but not any threat to the public order. Therefore, considering the overall material against the petitioner, it cannot be held that the detaining authority after subjective satisfaction, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is sand smuggler as contemplated under M.P.D.A. Act. Therefore, even though the respondent No.1 has confirmed the order of detention, but on overall consideration, it is revealed that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and in absence of subjective satisfaction. Therefore, we pass following order. ORDER (i) The Writ Petition stands allowed. (ii) The detention order dated 09.02.2026, passed by respondent No.2-The District Magistrate Nanded, under Section 3(2) of the M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 as well as the approval order of the State Government dated 18.02.2026 and the confirmation order dated 12.05.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Petitioner Sandeep Dhondiba More shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. (iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE