Bombay High Court
Avinash Suresh Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 24 July, 2026
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
CNR No : HCBM010657382025
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.25918 OF 2025
Mr. Avinash Suresh Sharma )
Age : 22 Years, Occ. Nil )
R/o. Near Nageshwar Temple )
Shriram Chowk, Canal Road, )
Ramnagar, Warje, Pune )
At present is in Amravati Central Prison ).... Petitioner/Detenu
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
Through Additional Chief Secretary )
Government of Maharashtra Home )
Department (Special) Mantralaya )
Mumbai, Commissioner of Police )
Pune City, Pune, Maharashtra )
2.The Commissioner of Police, )
Pune City, Pune )
3. The Superintendent of Amravati )
Prison, Amravati. )
4. The Senior Inspector of Police, )
Nanded City Police Station, Pune ).... Respondents
.....
Mr. Shailesh Kharat a/w Mr. Onkar Chaudhari and Mr. Shreyas More
for the Petitioner.
Smt. M.M. Deshmukh, Addl. P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
.....
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 1/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATED: 24th JULY 2026
JUDGMENT :
(Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)
1. The Petitioner has challenged the detention Order dated 19 th
August 2025, passed by Respondent No.2-The Commissioner of
Police, Pune City, Pune. Along with the detention order, the
committal order was also passed on the same day and he was
directed to be detained at Amravati Prison, Amravati.
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kharat, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Smt. M.M. Deshmukh, Addl. P.P. for Respondent No.1-
State.
3. Along with the detention order, the Petitioner was served with
the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention are important
because they afford opportunity to the detenue to make effective
representation at the earliest as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner made submissions
on the basis of the statements in the grounds of detention by the
Detaining Authority.
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 2/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
4. The grounds of detention are divided into different paragraphs.
Paragraph-1 is in respect of the authority of the Respondent No.2 to
pass the detention Order under the Maharashtra Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, Persons engaged
in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling,
Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred
to as “the said Act”)
5. Paragraph-2 is important which we will be referring to in our
further discussion.
6. Paragraph-3 lists his antecedents as follows :
(i) C.R. No.16 of 2022, registered at Uttam Nagar Police
Station, on 31st January, 2022, under Sections 385, 323,
427, 504, 506, 143, 147, 149 of IPC and under Section 7
of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
(ii) C.R. No.374 of 2022, registered at Warje Malwadi Police
Station on 5th October 2022, under Sections 307, 120(b),
143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 506(2) of IPC and under Section
4(25) of Arms Act and 37(1)(3)/135 of MPA & u/s 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act & u/s 3(1)(ii), 3(4) of
MCOCA, and;
(iii) C.R.No.34 of 2025, registered at Uttam Nagar, on 17 th
March 2025, under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2),RaJesh Chittewan, PS 3/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
3(5) of BNS.
7. Apart from these registered offences, paragraph-3, refers to
two preventive actions taken in the past which are as follows :-
(i) Chapter Case No.8 of 2022, dated 7th April 2022,
initiated by Uttam Nagar Police Station, under
Section 110(g) of CrP.C. It was withdrawn on 20 th
October 2022.
(ii) Chapter Case No.253 of 2023, dated 13 th April, 2023,
initiated by Warje Malwadi Police Station, under
Section 110(g) of Cr.P.C. In connection with this case,
the Petitioner had executed a bond for good behavior
for one year on 5th May, 2023.
8. Paragraph-3 refers to one more offence, i.e. C.R. No.42 of
2025, registered at Nanded City Police Station, under Sections
118(1), 352, 351(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of BNS
and under Sections 4(25) of Arms Act & 37(1)/135 of MPA. It was
registered on 16th March 2025. He was arrested on 25 th June, 2025
and was granted bail on 27 th June 2025. This offence finds reference
in other paragraphs of the grounds of detention. There is a specific
reference to this offence in paragraph-5. The details of this offence
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 4/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
are mentioned in paragraph-5.1. This offence pertains to the
incident dated 16th March 2025, taken place at around 5.30 p.m.
near Zepto Company. The allegations are that the Petitioner and his
associates assaulted the employees of the company.
9. Paragraph-6 refers to the in camera statements of Witness ‘A’ in
paragraph 6.1 and Witness ‘B’ in paragraph 6.2. Both these offences
are in respect of incidents dated 30 th June, 2025 and 2nd June, 2025,
respectively. Both are in the nature of extortion.
10. In paragraph-8, the Detaining Authority recorded that he has
relied on the materials mentioned in paragraphs 5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 of
the grounds of detention to arrive at his subjective satisfaction that
the Petitioner was a dangerous person as defined in under Section
2(b-1) of the said Act and that his criminal activities were prejudicial
to maintenance of public order.
11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this
particular subjective satisfaction recorded in paragraph-8 is directly
contrary to the statements made in paragraph-2 of the grounds of
detention. He submitted that in respect of the earlier offences, no
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 5/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
material is mentioned in the grounds of detention. On both these
counts, the detention order is required to be set aside, because the
Petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity to effectively make
representation; as contrary averments has created confusion.
12. The learned Counsel relied on the ground (L), taken in the
Petition, which reads thus :
“(L) The Petitioner states that the Respondent
No.2 has relied upon extraneous and irrelevant
material for coming to conclusion that the Petitioner
is habitual criminal. This becomes clear from the
observation made in paragraph 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of
communication dated 19th August 2025, that the
Respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the
stale and old FIRs, old preventive actions and has
also relied upon all the documents relied by the
Sponsoring Authority and this shows the
Respondent No.2 has not only relied on paragraph
5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 but other irrelevant material too.
Therefore, the subjective satisfaction is influenced
by the irrelevant and invalid material and cannot
sustain in the eyes of law.”
14. In response, the learned Addl. P.P. for Respondent No.1-State
relied on the Affidavit of the Detaining Authority particularly on
paragraphs 17 and 18. Those paragraphs are as follows :-
“17. With reference to Ground (K) of the Petition,
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 6/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
I say that the contents are denied.
It is submitted that, the offences and preventive
actions mentioned in Paras 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the
grounds of detention to show that the Petitioner is
habitual criminal involved in continuous criminal
activities. Accordingly, I had relied upon the material
mentioned in para 5.1 the offences and 6.1 and 6.2
statement of witness in the grounds of detention to
arrive at my subjective satisfaction that Petitioner is a
‘Dangerous Person’ as defined in Para 2(b-1) of the
said Act and Petitioner’s criminal activities are
prejudicial to maintenance of public order.
Hence, averments made in this grounds are baseless.
18. With reference to Ground 6(L) of the Petition, it is
submitted that, to avoid repetition kindly peruse the
reply to Ground 6(K) of this parawise comments.”
15. The learned Addl. P.P. submitted that it is quite clear that the
Detaining Authority has relied only on the material mentioned in
paragraph 5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 to reach to his subjective satisfaction that
the Petitioner is a dangerous person and that his activities are
causing prejudice to the maintenance of the public order.
16. We have considered these submissions.
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 7/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
17. In this context, the statements made by the Detaining Authority in
paragraph-2, are quite important. In the said paragraph, the
Detaining Authority has mentioned that the Petitioner was a weapon-
wielding dangerous recidivist of violent nature indulging in criminal
activities that foster terror in society. He was moving with deadly
arms and that he had made himself a virtual terror on account of his
criminal activities which were mentioned below paragraph-2. More
importantly, he has further made the following statement :-
“You have been habitually committing body and
property offences under Indian Penal Code, under BNS
as well as under Chapter V of the Arms Act and you
are thus a ‘Dangerous Person’ as defined under Section
2(b-1) of the said Act. Further, your criminal activities
are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”
This paragraph is immediately followed by paragraph-3,
wherein the C.R.No.16 of 2022 of Uttam Nagar Police Station, C.R.
No.374 of 2022 of Warje Malwadi Police Station, C.R.No.34 of 2025
of Uttam Nagar Police Station and two preventive actions mentioned
hereinabove, are referred to.
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 8/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
18. Thus, he has clearly reached the satisfaction that the Petitioner
was a dangerous person as per the definition and that his criminal
activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; based
on these past activities and past actions. It is quite clear from
paragraph nos.2 and 3.
19. This particular observation is important because dangerous
person is defined under Section 2(b-1) of the said Act. The said
Section reads as follows :-
Section 2(b-1) :
“Dangerous person’ means a person, who either by
himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually
commits, or attempts to commit or abets the
commission of any of the offences punishable under
Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code
or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of
the Arms Act, 1959.”
Similarly, what is acting in any manner prevention to the
maintenance of the public order is defined Section 2(a)(iv), in the
case of dangerous person, which reads as follows :-
2. Definitions.– In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,–
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 9/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
(a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order” means–
(i) ……….
2(a)(iv) in the case of a dangerous person, when he is engaged, or is
making preparation for engaging, in any of his activities as a
dangerous person, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect
adversely, the maintenance of public order.
20. If both these conditions are satisfied, then the detention order
can be passed, under Section 3(1), which reads thus :
3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.– (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
21. These powers can be delegated to the Respondent No.2, under
Section 3(2). Thus, these definitions are important and therefore
the satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority, i.e. Respondent
No.2, with reference to these definitions is equally important. The
Detaining Authority has already reached his satisfaction in
paragraph-2, based on the Petitioner’s past activities.
22. In this context, it is important to note that in the following
paragraphs, i.e. paragraph nos.5 and 6, he has referred to C.R. No.42
of 2025 of Nanded Police Station and two in camera statements. In
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 10/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
paragraph-7, he has stated that based on those facts subjectively
satisfied that the Petitioner was a dangerous person as defined in
Section 2(b-1) of the said Act.
23. In paragraph-8, he has elaborated that he relied on the
material mentioned in paragraphs 5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of
detention to arrive to his subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner
was dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the said
Act that his criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of
the public order.
24. Thus, paragraphs 2 and 8 are contrary because paragraph 2 records
the satisfaction based on the past activities and paragraph 8 records
the subjective satisfaction, based on C.R. No.42 of 2025, of Nanded
Police Station and two in camera statements. This definitely created
a confusion and therefore, the Petitioner is deprived of his right of
making an effective representation.
25. Apart from that since, the Detaining Authority has also relied upon
the past activities to record that the petitioner was a dangerous
person, it was necessary to have given minimum details in the
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 11/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
grounds of detention in respect of C.R.No.16 of 2022 of Uttam Nagar
Police Station, C.R.No.374 of 2022 of Warje Malwadi Police Station
and C.R. No.34 of 2025 of Uttam Nagar Police Station. There is no
reference to the incident regarding these offences in the entire
grounds of detention. Thus, the Petitioner is not given sufficient
material to make effective representation. On both these grounds,
detention order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following Order :-
:ORDER:
(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads
thus :-
“b. This Hon’ble Court be pleased Quash and set aside the
impugned Order dated 19th August 2025, No.CRIME/
PCB/DET/NANDEDCITY/SHARMA/669/2025 passed
by the Respondent No.2, thereby detaining the
Petitioner under MPDA Act and direct to the
Respondents to release the detenue forthwith.”
(ii) The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in
any other case.
(iii) The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 12/13
902. WP (ST.) 25918-2025.doc
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 13/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
