Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Against Haridas Shankar Gaikwad

The Court ruled that the detaining authority failed to assess the sufficiency of bail conditions before issuing the detention order.

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, has quashed the preventive detention order issued against Haridas Shankar Gaikwad under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The court, comprising Justices M.S. Karnik and Ajit B. Kadethankar, found that the detaining authority did not consider the effectiveness of the bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court, which led to the preventive detention order being deemed unsustainable.

The case revolved around Gaikwad, who was accused of engaging in activities prejudicial to public order, particularly involving the illegal refilling of domestic LPG cylinders. Despite being granted bail by the competent court on March 7, 2025, under certain conditions, the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, issued a preventive detention order on April 14, 2025, citing the potential threat posed by Gaikwad's activities to public order.

The petitioner's counsel, Ms. Jayashree Tripathi, argued that the detaining authority failed to assess whether the bail conditions were adequate to prevent further prejudicial activities by Gaikwad. She cited precedents from the Supreme Court, highlighting that preventive detention should not be used when ordinary criminal law remedies, such as bail cancellation, are available.

The court agreed with these submissions, emphasizing that the detaining authority did not establish subjective satisfaction that bail conditions were insufficient. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to show that Gaikwad engaged in prejudicial activities post-bail. The court noted that the detaining authority relied on in-camera statements recorded before Gaikwad's bail, which were insufficient grounds for preventive detention.

The judgment also referenced Supreme Court rulings, such as Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India and Shaik Nazneen v. State of Telangana, underscoring that preventive detention laws should be applied cautiously, especially when bail has been granted with specific conditions.

Ultimately, the court quashed the detention order, directing Gaikwad's immediate release, and highlighted that the state should have pursued bail cancellation if they believed Gaikwad posed a significant threat to society.

Bottom Line:

Preventive detention order cannot be sustained when the detaining authority fails to consider the efficacy of bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court and does not establish subjective satisfaction that such conditions were insufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities.

Statutory provision(s):  

• Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 - Section 3  
• Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226  
• Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7  
• Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 287, 288

Haridas Shankar Gaikwad v. Commissioner of Police Solapur, (Bombay)(Circuit Bench At Kolhapur)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2807141