Court finds contradictory grounds, non-application of mind, ignored subsisting bond proceedings, and inadequate basis for assuming bail in preventive detention case under MPDA Act.
The Bombay High Court has set aside a preventive detention order passed by the Pune Commissioner of Police against Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan, holding that the detention was vitiated by contradictory grounds, factual inaccuracies, and lack of proper application of mind.
A Division Bench of Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale delivered the judgment on 18 September 2026 while hearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 2144 of 2026. The Court ordered the petitioner’s immediate release, unless required in any other case.
The detention order, dated 6 December 2025, had been passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act), on the premise that the petitioner was a “dangerous person” whose activities were prejudicial to public order. The police relied on three earlier registered offences, two in-camera witness statements, and previous preventive actions, including a bond executed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
However, the High Court found serious inconsistencies in the grounds of detention. In one part of the grounds, the authority stated that the petitioner was a dangerous person based on his past criminal history. In another part, it claimed that the subjective satisfaction was based only on the recent offences and in-camera statements. The Court held that these contradictory stands impaired the petitioner’s right to make the earliest effective representation against the detention.
The Bench also noted that the detention grounds referred to an offence of attempt to murder, even though none of the cases relied upon actually involved such a charge. This, the Court said, clearly showed non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Another important factor that weighed with the Court was the existence of a subsisting preventive bond proceeding. The petitioner had executed a bond for two years in a chapter proceeding under the BNSS, and the bond was still in force when the detention order was passed. The Court observed that there was no explanation as to why action for breach of bond or withdrawal under ordinary law was not taken before resorting to the drastic measure of preventive detention. The Court also noted a discrepancy between the English and Marathi versions of the detention grounds regarding the date of withdrawal of the chapter case.
On the issue of bail, the detaining authority had stated that the petitioner was likely to be released because the offence in question was not compulsorily punishable with death. The High Court rejected this reasoning, relying on earlier Division Bench rulings in Aman Yusuf Pathan @ Khan v. Commissioner of Police and Aman Shakir Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra. The Court reiterated that a mere statement that an offence is not compulsorily punishable with death is not enough to justify an inference that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. Such satisfaction must be based on cogent material.
Finding that the detention grounds suffered from contradictions, inaccuracies, and an insufficient basis for the bail assumption, the High Court held that the detention order could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the detention order dated 6 December 2025 and directed that the petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Bottom Line :-
Preventive detention under the MPDA Act is liable to be quashed where the grounds of detention contain contradictory stands regarding the material relied upon for subjective satisfaction, disclose non-application of mind, ignore subsisting preventive bond proceedings under BNSS without explanation, and record likelihood of release on bail merely on the ground that the offence is not compulsorily punishable with death.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 Sections 2(b-1), 2(a)(iv), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 129(e)(g), 141(1)(a)(b)
Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Pune, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987028
