5.wp423.2026jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 423 OF 2026 Parvesh @ Parvej s/o- Gaurishankar Gupta, Aged About 35 years, Occ: Private, R/o Rajeev Nagar, Khadan, Pandhrabodi, P.S. Ambazari, Nagpur. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ... Respondents 3. The Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur (petitioner was presently detained at Nagpur Central Prison) 4. The Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune (petitioner is presently detained at Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.) Mr. Aaquid Mirza, Advocate a/w Ms. Shiba Thakur, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.A. Thakare, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 08.09.2026 JUDGMENT: Heard. (2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally PAGE 1 OF 20 2026:BHC-NAG:11976-DB 5.wp423.2026jud.odt by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent/State. (3) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed by respondent No.1 on 11.02.2026 under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, ‘the MPDA Act’) and also the confirmation order dated 12.05.2016 by the Advisory Board. (4) It is the contention of the petitioner that he is a resident of Ambazari, Nagpur and he never convicted in any of the alleged offences against him. The petitioner was initially detained at Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur. Later, he was transferred to Yerawada Central Prison, Pune. The order of Detention bearing D.O.No.DET/MPDA/ZONE-II/PCB/02/2026 was passed on 11.02.2026 and served upon on the petitioner. (5) It is contended that the grounds on which the petitioner is detained are vague and without application of mind. The PAGE 2 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt respondent No.1 as well as the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the MPDA Act has also not considered that the grounds are vague one and confirmed the detention order without assigning any reason. The Advisory Board has also delayed in deciding the representation of the petitioner and in communication regarding the result of the said representation to the petitioner. The Advisory Board without considering whether there are any prevailing circumstances for confirming the order of detention passed by the respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Police, Nagpur. (6) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, he endorsed the same contentions and submitted that without assigning reason and on the basis of vague allegations, the detention order came to be passed. (7) Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that since the year 2015 the petitioner has been continuously engaged in the commission of violent and a desperate criminal activities. There are nine offences registered against the petitioner/detenu, out of which, one recent offence and two in- camera statements of the witnesses A and B relating to the petitioner. PAGE 3 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt The criminal activities were considered while passing the detention order on 11.02.2026. He further submitted that the grounds of detention are already communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred a representation dated 23.02.2026 before the Advisory Board through Superintendent Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur. The Advisory Board, thereafter, issued notice to the petitioner on 18.03.2026 for appearing through video conferencing on 25.03.2025. The Advisory Board after examining the grounds of detention, the materials presented by the detaining authority and the representations/online hearing submitted by the detenu, has opined that there is sufficient cause for the continued detention of the detenu and thereafter, the order came to be passed. He submitted that the Advisory Board specifically considered: a) The necessity of preventive detention to avert imminent danger to public order, b) The proportionality of detention in the light of detenu’s conduct, c) The procedure safeguards and the detenu’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the detention is preventive, not punitive and is in accordance with the law and constitutional principles. PAGE 4 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt d) Thus, the Advisory Board has considered the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nenavath Bujji Vs. State of Telangana in Criminal Appeal No. 1738-39 of 2024, emphasizing that preventive detention orders must be supported by adequate material and that the detenu’s activities posed a clear threat to society. Thus, he submitted that in view of the continuous criminal activities, the Advisory Board has confirmed the detention order. The Advisory Board has also considered the statements of the witnesses which are recorded who are the secret witnesses and thereafter, by assigning the reason, the order came to be passed and therefore, no interference is called for. (8) After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it reveals that in all nine offences are considered by the authorities while passing the order of detention. The detention order reveals that to prevent the petitioner from acting in any prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed a detention order under Section 3 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 PAGE 5 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt Essential Commodities Act, illegal gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981. (9) Thus, it is the contention of the petitioner that his personal liberty was deprived of by passing this order and therefore, he approached this Court with a grievance that the order of preventive detention, approval thereof and the confirmation orders are passed in a mechanical manner. In the present case, the detention order was passed on 11.02.2026, approval order was passed on 28.02.2026 and confirmation order was passed by the Advisory Board on 12.05.2026. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed under Section 3 as well as under Sections 9 and 12 of the said Act by the authorities. (10) This aspect is already considered by this Court in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. and with other connected petitions, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 6145 wherein the scope of Section 3 of the MPDA Act is considered in detailed. This Court observed that the orders of preventive detention are passed under Section 3 of the Act of 1981, which reads as under : PAGE 6 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt “Section 3 - 1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by order in writing, direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub- section : Provided that the period specified in the order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance, exceed [six months] but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding [six months] at any one time . 3) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government.” (11) Thus, sub-section (1) stipulates that the State Government is authorised to issue an order of detention against an individual, provided it is satisfied that such detention is imperative to PAGE 7 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt prevent the individual from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (12) Sub-section (2) provides that the State Government may empower District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police to exercise powers conferred by sub-section (1). The State Government is, however, required to record a satisfaction that the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area are such, that would require conferment of powers of the State Government upon the jurisdictional District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police in order to prevent any person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (13) Proviso to sub-section (2) stipulates that the period specified in the order made by the State Government under this sub- section shall not, in the first instance, exceed six months, but the State Government may amend such order to extend such period from time to time not exceeding three months at any one time. In other words, the State Government, by such order, may confer its powers under sub- section (1) of Section 3 upon District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police for a period, not exceeding six months with a rider of PAGE 8 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt permissible extension from time to time, but not exceeding three months at one time. (14) Thus, the State Government will have to record a satisfaction that in a particular area, within the local limits of jurisdiction of District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail are such that would require preventive detention of a person, if contingency so arises. The order of detention must, therefore, explicitly disclose the existence of such circumstances or the reasonable likelihood thereof, wherein the possibility of an individual or individuals acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order is manifest. In such a situations, where the contingency materializes, the officers empowered under sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall be vested with the necessary authority and powers conferred by the State Government to prevent the individual(s) from engaging in conduct as described in sub-section (1). (15) Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that when an order is passed under sub-section (2), the officer concerned shall forthwith report the said fact to the State Government, together with PAGE 9 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt the grounds on which the order has been made, so also, such other particulars that would have bearing on the matter. Sub-section (3) further provides that no such order shall remain in force or more than twelve days unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. (16) Thus, overall reading of Section 3 indicates that the prime responsibility of passing order of preventive detention lies with the State Government. (17) Thus, it is incumbent upon the State Government to exercise its discretion in mattes of preventive detention. The order of approval must encompass consideration mandate under sub-section (1), such that the approval process reflects the same evaluative criteria as would be required for issuing an order under sub-section (1). The approval order, therefore, should be predicated on the same substantive and procedural considerations as are requisite for the issuance of an order under sub-section (1), ensuring compliance with the principles of law and due process inherent in the exercise of such powers. PAGE 10 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt (18) After going through the orders passed by the respondent No.1 it reveals that despite the clear mandates in view of Section 3 as given by this Court in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare (supra) again the mechanical order came to be passed by the respondent No.1 on 11.02.2026, which is reproduced as under : Office of the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City. Dated: 11th February, 2026. - ORDER - D.O. No. DET/MPDA/Zone-II/PCB/02/2026. Whereas, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City is satisfied with respect to the person known as Parvesh alias Parvej s/o Gaurishankar Gupta, aged 35 years, R/o Rajeev Nagar, Khadan, Pandhrabodi, P. Stn. Ambazari, Nagpur City that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing him to be detained under 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, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (Mah. No. LV of 1981). Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- Section (1) of the Section 3 of the said Act, read with Government Order Home Department (Special) No.MPDA-1225/CR-673/SPL-3(B), Dated 30th December, 2025, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, hereby directs that the said Parvesh alias Parvej s/o Gaurishankar Gupta be detained under sub-Section (2) of the Section 3 of the said Act. Place: Nagpur. (Dr. Ravinder Kumar Singal) Dated: 11th February, Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City. PAGE 11 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt (19) Thus, the detention order nowhere reflects that the petitioner’s act in a manner deterrent to the maintenance of public order, a will act in future and therefore, it is required to exercise the powers and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed. Thus, the detention order nowhere discloses prevailing or likely to prevail the circumstances in any area within the local limits of jurisdiction of the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police. Thus, the situation is fact based in a particular area. The order of conferment area therefore, should describe the circumstances that are prevailing in any area or likely to prevail in that area, where there is likelihood that a person/s will act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (20) On the contrary, it reveals that mechanical order came to be passed by the respondent No.1 while passing a detention order. (21) Similarly, the detention order nowhere discloses the subjective satisfaction which is required in view of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA Act. The subjective satisfaction for the exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA Act must be PAGE 12 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt based on circumstances prevailing on the date of the order or likely to prevail at a future date. The period during which the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, is to exercise the power provided by sub-section (2) of Section 3 is to specified in the order which would depend on the existence of circumstances either on that day or at a future date. If the subject satisfaction is based on circumstances prevailing on the date of the order, the choice of a period, which must not exceed three months, would have to be determined from the date of the order. (22) Similarly, this Court has further considered in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare (supra), the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.20 specifically observed that “Thus, the Supreme Court held that power to make an order of detention primarily rests with the Central Government or the State Government. The Court then mentioned about the circumstances under which the State Government could confer powers upon District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police. The Court highlighted necessary ingredients of sub-section (2) to confer powers. The Court held that if the Government wants that District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police PAGE 13 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt should exercise powers during present or future period, it must be satisfied with the circumstances that are prevailing or likely to prevail during that period.” (23) Thus, there are two sets of circumstances, one is, prevailing, and other is, likely to prevail. The State Government, therefore, will have to specify in the order or otherwise as to what are the circumstances that are prevailing that would require District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police to exercise powers of the State Government. Depending on such circumstances, the State Government will have to then determine the period for which powers should be conferred upon the officers mentioned in sub-section (2). (24) The another set of circumstances will cover the circumstances that are likely to prevail in future. In such an eventuality, the State Government must specify in the order or otherwise the future date/period under such circumstances are likely to prevail, that would require the officers mentioned in sub-section (2) to exercise powers of the State Government. The duration of such exercise shall be contingent upon the nature and anticipated persistence of the circumstances likely to prevail in future. PAGE 14 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt (25) Thus, this Court in the above mentioned Akshay Bhaskar Sahare’s case considered this aspect in detailed and observed that the order of confirmation must specify the reason justifying the decision and also provide the reasons to continue detention for the period which is mentioned in the order. The said subjective satisfaction or the reasoning or prevailing or likely to prevail circumstances was also absent in the present case when the Advisory Board rejected the representation of the present petitioner. (26) On perusal of the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, which is reproduced as under : GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA Home Department, 2nd Floor, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai-400 032. Most Immediate Email ID- spec3b.home@maharashtra.gov.in ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date:-12.05.2026 DETENTION CONFIRMATION ORDER No.MPDA-0226/CR:105/Spl-3B:- WHEREAS, the Police Commissioner, Nagpur in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), after considering the reports and intelligence PAGE 15 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt received from law enforcement agencies, issued Detention Order No.DET/MPDA/ZONE/II/PCB/02/2026, dated 11.02.2026 directing the preventive detention of Parvesh Alias Parvej Gaurishankar Gupta, (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu") on the grounds that: A) The detenu had continuously engaged himself in the commission of violent and desperate acts, such as dacoity, robbery committing on the highway between sunset and sunrise, extortion, extortion for puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, attempt to commit murder, voluntarily causing hurt, kidnapping, abetment, criminal conspiracy, wrongful confinement, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon, criminal intimidation with threat to cause of death or grievous hurt, abusing in filthy language, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, mischief causing damage to property, moving armed with deadly weapons, violation of prohibitory and externment orders. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to detain the above mentioned person under the said Act in order to prevent him from acting in such a prejudicial manner. B) Various investigating agencies reports indicated that, he has been continuously engaging himself in the commission of violent and desperate criminal activities. Even tempo of life of the residents of the areas where he ordinarily reside and the public order in general have been disturbed by his incessant criminal activities which are continuing unabated even after taking all preventive actions against him. C) His activities were likely to cause disturbance to public order and were prejudicial to the maintenance of essential commodities and public safety. D) He had previously been warned and monitored but continued to engage in activities enumerated under the Act. AND WHEREAS, the Advisory Board constituted under the Act, after examining the grounds of detention, the materials presented by the Police Commissioner, Nagpur and the representations/online hearing submitted by the detenu, has opined that there is sufficient cause for the continued detention of the detenu. The Advisory Board specifically considered: PAGE 16 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt a) The necessity of preventive detention to avert imminent danger to public order; b) The proportionality of detention in light of the detenu's conduct; c) That procedural safeguards and the detenu's rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been fully observed; d) That the detention is preventive, not punitive, and is in accordance with the law and constitutional principles; e) The Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Nenavath Bujji Vs State of Telangana (Criminal Appeal No.1738-39 of 2024), emphasizing that preventive detention orders must be supported by adequate material and that the detenu's activities posed a clear threat to society. AND WHEREAS, the Government of Maharashtra, having considered the opinion of the Advisory Board and after careful examination of the facts, intelligence reports, and representations submitted by the detention authority, is satisfied that the detention of the detenu is necessary to prevent him from engaging in dangerous activities prejudicial to public order. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub- section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, the Government of Maharashtra hereby confirms Detention Order No.DET/MPDA/ZONE/II/PCB/02/2026, dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Police Commissioner, Nagpur and directs that the detention of detenu Parvesh Alias Parvej Gaurishankar Gupta be continued for a period of "12" months from the date of detention. This order is issued subject to the following safeguards in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court: (i) The detenu shall have the right to make representations to the Government for early release; (ii) The detention shall be periodically reviewed by the Advisory Board as required under the Act; PAGE 17 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt (iii) The detention is solely for preventive purposes and is not punitive. The Government confirms that sufficient material exists to justify the detention, and that procedural safeguards have been fully observed, in line with the guidelines established in Nenavath Bujji Vs State of Telangana. By order and in name of the Governor of Maharashtra, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special 3B) (27) Thus, the order of confirmation by the Advisory Board also silent about the prevailing circumstances in a particular area for exercising the powers of the State Government by the officers mentioned in sub-section (2). Thus, merely on the basis of multiple offences, the activities of detenu cannot be termed as the act amounting to disturbing public order unless such habituality has disturbed any public order. In the present case. The history of the offences which reflect from the detention order is not sufficient to detain the present petitioner. As far as the submission of the learned APP regarding the judgment of Nevnath Bhuji’s case is concerned which was also taken into consideration by this Court in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare and observed that in the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in such a cases instead of proceeding to pass an order of detention, the authority should have approached the Court PAGE 18 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt concerned for cancellation of bail on the ground that the detenu had continued to indulge in nefarious activities and many more FIRs have been registered against him. The Supreme Court observed that whenever any accused is released on bail by any criminal Court in connection with any offence, whether it is specifically said so in the order of bail, while imposing conditions or not, it is implied that bail is granted on the condition that the accused shall not indulge in any such offence or illegal activity in future. Thus, appropriate remedy, in such cases, is to approach Court for cancellation of bail. (28) Thus, in view of the observation of this Court in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare (supra) wherein the lacunae in the order of the Police Commissioner as well as the State Government orders though pointed out by this Court but again similar type of the orders are passed by the authorities. Thus, adequate provisions though are made to protect the witnesses as well as the requirement is of a subjective satisfaction but the authorities are still continued with passing orders which are mechanical and without application of mind. Therefore, the present case is also covered by the observation made by this Court in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare and passed without PAGE 19 OF 20 5.wp423.2026jud.odt addressing prevailing or likely to prevail the circumstances. Thus, the order which is under challenge passed by the Advisory Board also nowhere shows that prevailing or likely to prevail circumstances are considered while rejecting the representation of the present petitioner and therefore, the order of detention, which is confirmed by the Advisory Board deserves to be quashed and set aside. In view of that, we proceed to pass following order: O R D E R (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order of detention dated 11.02.2026, approval dated 28.02.2026 and confirmation/confernment by the Advisory Board dated 12.05.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The petitioner namely Parvesh @ Parvej s/o Gaurishankar Gupta, shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (29) With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) Prity PAGE 20 OF 20 Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 18:35:32