Bombay High Court
Vishal Ramesh Kasabe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:11491-DB
(1)
Cri. W. P. 1572-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1572 OF 2025
Vishal Ramesh Kasabe,
Age : 22 Years, Occ.
R/o. Punjabai Chowk, Indirangar,
Garkheda Parisar, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department (Special),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Commissioner of Police
Ch. Sambhajinagar.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-II, Ch. Sambhajinagar
4. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Jawahar Nagar,
Ch. Sambhajinagar ..Respondents
.....
Mr. Rahul Joshi, Advocate holding for Ms. Kalpana S. Kulkarni
(Sonpawale), Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. B. B. Gunjal, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State :
.....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 06, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: MARCH 17, 2026
FINAL ORDER (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rahul Joshi h/f Adv. Kalpana
(2)
Cri. W. P. 1572-2025.odt
S. Kulkarni for the petitioner and learned Mrs. Bharati B.
Gunjal for respondents/State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the rival parties.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention
dated 17.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 bearing No.
O.S.S.2025/CB/MPDA/DET-02/CR-38 in exercise of powers
under sub-section (1) of 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
Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as
"MPDA Act") as well as the approval order of the State
Government dated 26.06.2025 and the confirmation order
dated 13.08.2025 passed by State Government i.e. respondent
No.1 vide its order No. MPDA-0625/CR/315/Spl-3B, by
invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
following offences are registered against the petitioner and one
externment order was also passed against him.
(3)
Cri. W. P. 1572-2025.odt
Sr. Police C.R. No. & Under Date of Present
No. Station Section Registration status
1 Jawahar 272/2022 u/s 394, 18.10.2022 Pending
nagar 34 IPC trial
2. Jawahar 98/2023 u/s 379 27.04.2023 Pending
nagar IPC trial
3. Satara 104/2023, u/s 05/04/2023 Pending
392, 323, 34 IPC trial
4. Jawahar 234/2023 u/s 324, 23.09.2023 Pending
nagar 323, 504 IPC trial
5. Jawahar 53/2024 u/s 435, 01.03.2024 Pending
nagar 336, 427, 504, 506 trial
IPC
6. Jawahar 58/2024 u/s 392, 10.03.2024 Pending
nagar 504, 34 IPC trial
7. Jawahar 108/2025 u/s 142 24.03.2025 Police
nagar Maharashtra Police Investigati
Act, 1951, 4/25 on
Arms Act, 1959
8. Jawahar 109/2025 u/s 25.03.2025 Police
nagar 309(5), 118(1) Investigati
Bhartiya Nyaya on
Sanhita, 2023
Further, the detaining authority also relied on the Externment
action taken against the petitioner as follows :-
Externment Action
Sr. Police Externment Order No. Under Section &
No Station Disposal
01 Jawahar Order No. DCP/ Externment
nagar Zone-II/Externment/28/20 order has been
23/07-2024-5063, Office of dropped as
the Dy. Commissioner of action taken
Police, Zone-II, Chhatrapati under MPDA
Sambhajinagar Act, 1981
Dated 31/10/2024
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the
(4)
Cri. W. P. 1572-2025.odt
detaining authority has considered mainly two offences namely
C.R.No. 108 of 2025 under Sections 142 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959
registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station, Ch.
Sambhajinagar dated 24.03.2025 and C.R. No. 109 of 2025
under Section 309(5) and 118 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short "B.N.S.") registered with with Jawahar Nagar
Police Station, Ch. Sambhajinagar dated 25.03.2025, to
declare the petitioner as a "Dangerous Person". However, it is
to be noted that for the first six offences, there is absolutely no
live link present, since those offences appeared to be
committed during the period from 18.10.2022 to 10.03.2024.
According to him, the petitioner is already released on bail in
the crimes of 2025. According to him, the detaining authority
did not consider the bail orders. He submitted that, the
offences against the petitioner are of individual nature and no
breach of public order is involved. Moreover, the statement of
two secrete witnesses are also vague in nature regarding the
dates of the incidents and stereotype in nature. At the most,
question of law and order would arise, but there is no breach
of public order. Accordingly, he prayed for the relief as
mentioned above.
(5)
Cri. W. P. 1572-2025.odt
6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by filing affidavit-
in-reply of respondent No.2. According to her, considering the
criminal activities of the petitioner, he fulfills the criteria of
being defined as "Dangerous Person" as per sub-section (1) of
3 of the M.P.D.A. Act. She pointed out that, due to dangerous
activities of the petitioner, the persons residing within the
limits of Ch. Sambhajinagar remain under constant fear and
terror, and therefore, the petitioner has become threat to the
public order. She pointed out that, the detaining authority is
convinced and subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is a
"Dangerous Person" as defined in M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 and thus
pass the impugned order, which needs to be upheld.
7. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nenvath
Bujji Vs. State of Telangana [2024 SCC Online SC 367] has
reiterated that detention order cannot be sustained without
strict compliance of the provisions, since it relates to the
question of liberty of citizen. Further, it is clearly apparent
from the material on record that there is no live link between
first six offences, registered against the petitioner, during the
period from 2022 to 2024. Further, it appears that the
petitioner is already released on bail in two crimes, which are
(6)
Cri. W. P. 1572-2025.odt
considered for passing this order. However, the detaining
authority did not consider the same while passing the
impugned order and did not even care to go through the
conditions of bail if any. It definitely shows non-application of
mind on the part of the detaining authority.
8. It is specifically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Joyi kitty Josef Vs. Union of India & Others
reported in 2025 AIR (SC) 1702 that preventive detention
cannot be used to by-pass the judicial bail process. Even in
the judgment of Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana
[ 2023(9) SCC 587] the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the
distinction between threat to law and order and acts
prejudicial to public order. On this background, if the nature
of the act committed by the petitioner is examined, then it
appears that it had not created deterrence to the public order.
On the contrary, it appears that the criminal acts allegedly
committed by the petitioner, are against the individuals, such
as, voluntarily causing hurt and insult.
9. So far as in-camera statements of secret witnesses are
concerned, those are stereotype in nature and even taken as
true, the question of law and order would at least arise, but
not of the breach of public order, since the acts mentioned in
(7)
Cri. W. P. 1572-2025.odt
those statements are against the individuals. Moreover, the
specific dates of the incidents are also not disclosed by the
concerned witnesses, and therefore, those appear to be vague
in nature. Therefore, considering all these aspects, in the light
of observations and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, what
is revealed, that the criminal acts of the petitioner have created
law and order situation, but not disturbance to the public
order. Even though the Advisory Board has confirmed the
detention order, but still we are of the opinion that there was
no concrete material before the detaining authority to hold that
the petitioner is a dangerous person. Under such
circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The detention order dated 17.06.2025, bearing Number O.S.S.2025/CB/MPDA/DET-02/CR-38 passed by respondent No.2 under Section sub- section (1) of Section 3 the M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 as well as the approval order of the State Government dated 26.06.2025 and the confirmation order dated 13.08.2025 are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Petitioner-Vishal Ramesh Kasabe shall be (8) Cri. W. P. 1572-2025.odt released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/