In a petition filed before the Bombay High Court to assail an order of detention under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar quashed and set aside the detention order while noting that if the detenu is a menace to the society, the prosecution must seek cancellation of bail and/or appeal to a higher court.
The Senior Inspector of Police, Salgarwasti Police Station, Solapur, submitted a proposal on 10-03-2025 to detain the petitioner. The Commissioner of Police and the detaining authority scrutinized this proposal and were satisfied that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Commissioner was also satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner under the MPDA Act.
The detention order was served on the petitioner on 14-04-2025, and a report under Section 3 of the MPDA Act was sent to the Government of Maharashtra on 15-04-2025, which was confirmed on 22-05-2025.
The petitioner submitted that the criminal prosecution and the basis of the detention order were a case under Sections 287 and 288 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner was granted bail after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. The detaining authority submitted that the detention order was passed within the framework of the MPDA Act and that the material on record indicated that the petitioner was engaged in illegal refilling of domestic LPG into autorickshaws to gain undue profit.
The Court noted that the Commissioner had relied on the in-camera statements of witnesses from which he formed an opinion that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community.
Noting the petitioner’s release on bail in the case mentioned above, the detaining authority considered his propensity towards criminality and observed that it was likely for him to revert to similar activities that were prejudicial to the maintenance of the supply of essential commodities, i.e., domestic LPG cylinders.
The Court noted that, by order dated 07-03-2025, the petitioner was released on bail subject to certain terms and conditions. The Court noted that the detaining authority had not considered the efficacy of the conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court while releasing the petitioner on bail and stated that, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, great caution must be exercised to scrutinize the validity of an order of preventive detention on the same charge which is to be tried by criminal court when a person is released on bail.
Further, the Court stated that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had taken part in any criminal activities and that the prosecution had also not moved an application for the cancellation of bail. It was said that the detaining authority must have examined whether the conditions imposed while granting bail were sufficient to restrain the petitioner from indulging in similar activities.
It was stated that if the detenu is a menace to society, the prosecution should seek cancellation of bail and/or appeal to the higher court, but seeking shelter under the Preventive Detention Law was improper. Thus, the detention order was quashed and set aside.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Ms. Jayashree Tripathi
For Respondent – Ms. S.N. Deshmukh
