Bombay High Court
Avinash Alias Bhaiya Madhavrao Mirase vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 March, 2026
(1)
Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1330 OF 2025
Avinash @ Bhaiya S/o Madhavrao Mirase,
Age : 28 Years, Occ. Private Service,
R/o. Thursday Market N.D. 120, CIDCO,
Nanded ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary Home Department,
Mantralya Mumbai.
2. The District Magistrate,
Nanded.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Chh. Sambhajinagar. ..Respondents
.....
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh C. Bhosle
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. S. R. Wakale
.....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 16, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: MARCH 17, 2026
ORDER (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the rival parties.
(2)
Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt
3. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 12.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2 bearing No.2025/RB-1/Desk-2/T-4/MPDA/CR-30 in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Sub-Section (2) 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 22.08.2025 vide its order No. MPDA-0825/CR-467/Spl-3B and the confirmation order dated 26.09.2025 passed by State Government i.e. respondent No.1, 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 preventive action is also taken against him. Sr. Police C. R. No. Under Date of filing of Arrest Bail Date Present N Statio Section the case Date Status o n
1. Nande 418/2020 324, 323, 02.06.2020 05.06.202 05.06.202 Court d 504, 506, 34 0 0 Pending Rural IPC RCS No. 772/2020 (3) Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt S Police C. R. No. Under Date of filing Arrest Bail Date Present r Station Section of the case Date Status .
N o 2 Nande 777/2020 4/25 11/11/2020 12/11/2020 12/11/20 Court . d Rural Arms Act 20 Pending RCS No. 17/2021 3 Nande 48/2021 452, 324, 26.01.2021 06.05.2021 06.05.202 Court . d Rural 323, 504, 1 Pending 34 IPC RCC No. 4/25 642/202 Arms Act 1 4 Nande 473/2021 324, 504, 04.07.2021 17.08.2021 17.08.202 Court . d Rural 506 IPC 1 pending RCC No. 922/202 1 5 Nande 818/2021 324, 323, 19.11.2021 07.08.2022 08.08.202 Court . d Rural 504, 506 2 pending IPC 4/25 RCC No. Arms Act 975/202 2 6 Nande 135/2022 324, 504, 08.03.2022 04.08.2022 04.08.202 Court . d Rural 506 IPC 2 Pending RCC No. 1007/20 22 7 Nande 255/2022 341, 325, 27.04.2022 06.08.2022 06.08.202 Court . d Rural 324, 504, 2 pending 506, 34 RCC No. IPC 1180/20 22 8 Nande 342/2022 324, 07.06.2022 07.08.2022 07.08.202 Court . d Rural 323,504,5 2 Pending 06 34 IPC RCC No. 4/25 190/202 Arms Act 3 9 Nande 375/2022 326,324,3 24.06.2022 04.08.2022 08.08.202 Court . d Rural 23,504,50 2 pending 6 34 IPC, RCC No. 4/25 786/202 Arms Act 3 (4) Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt 1 Nand 728/2022 307,323 10.12.2022 17.02.2023 19.06.20 Court 0 ed ,341, 23 pending Rural 504,506 S.C. No. , 34 IPC 92/2023 4/25, 27 Arms Act 1 Nand 60/2023 307,143 04.02.2023 06.02.2023 29.04.20 Court 1. ed ,147,14 23 Pending Rural 8,149,5 S.C. No. 06, 73/2023 427,324 , IPC 6/25, 4/25 Arms Act 1 Nand 57/2024 307, 23.01.2024 23.01.2024 30.05.20 Court 2. ed 323, 24 pending Rural 506, 34 S.C. No IPC, 102/202 4/25, 27 4 Arms Act 1 Nand 192/2025 109,189 27.02.2025 27.03.2025 08.05.20 On 3. ed , 22 investiga Rural 189(4), tion 189(3), 191(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS IPC 4/25 Arms Act 1 Nand 194/25 109, 27/02/2025 03/03/2025 MCR On 4. ed 132, investiga Rural 262, tion BN/s, 3/25 Arms Act (5) Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt 15 Nan 199/2025 118(2), 27.02.2025 12.03.2025 12.03.20 On . ded 1115 25 investiga Rura (2), tion l 352,351 (2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 BNS, 4/25 Arms Act
Further, the detaining authority also relied on the preventive action taken against the petitioner as follows :-
Preventive Action Sr. Police Station Chapter Section Date Present No. Case No. Status 1 Nanded Rural 158/2020 107 Cr.P.C. 05.05.2020 Closed 2 Nanded Rural 213/2022 107 Cr.P.C. 25.08.2022 Closed
5. However, the detaining authority has considered mainly three offences namely C.R. No. 192/2025 under Sections 109, 189, 189(4), 189(3), 191(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115 (2), 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "B.N.S.") and 4/25 Arms Act registered with Nanded Rural Police Station on 27.02.2025 and C.R.No. 194 of 2025 registered with same Police Station, under Sections 109, 132, 262 of the B.N.S. Act dated 27.02.2025 and C.R. No. 199/2025 registered with same police stations, under Sections 118(2), 115 (2), 352, 351(2), 351 (3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of the (6) Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt B.N.S. Act 2023 on 27.02.2025 to declare the petitioner as a "Dangerous Person".
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is absolutely no live link present for first twelve offences, which were committed till 2024. According to him, the petitioner is released on bail in last three crimes, which are considered for passing this order. He further submitted that the ordinary law of land is sufficient to deal with the situation and there was no breach of public order. He submitted that the statements of secrete witnesses are stereotype and vague in nature, which are in respect of individual persons, for which, at the most question of law and order may arise.
7. 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 him, considering the criminal activities of the petitioner, he fulfills the criteria of being defined as "Dangerous Person" as per Section 2(b-1) 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 " M.P.D.A." Act) . He pointed out that, despite (7) Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt committing various crimes in the year 2024, he did not stop there and again indulged into dangerous activities. The persons residing within the jurisdiction of Nanded city and adjoining areas remain under constant fear and terror, and therefore, the petitioner has become threat to the public order. He 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.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner is released on bail in last three crimes, which are considered for passing the impugned order. However, on going through the same, it certainly reveals that so many serious crimes are registered against the petitioner and despite registration of such serious crimes since 2020, the petitioner again indulged into the dangerous activities. There is no statutory provision which restricts the type of material that can be considered by the detaining authority. It is settled that preventive detention is a precautionary measure and the authority need not prove guilt "to the hilt" but must have reasonable satisfaction of the necessity. Further, though the statements of secrete witnesses are somewhat vague in nature in respect of the particulars of the incidents, but such (8) Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt statements can validly treated for subjective satisfaction. Moreover, the habituality of the petitioner can be inferred from a series of contemporaneous incidents, not necessarily past convictions. In the instant case, there are severe crimes registered against the petitioner and it appears that he continued his criminal acts regardless of the same.
9. It is significant to note that the present petitioner, as per the allegations, had even fired bullet on police from his country-made pistol. Moreover, he is found acting with gang of criminal. Further, the impugned order appears to be passed after taking into consideration all the material against the petitioner and there is no delay on record while sending the proposal and thereafter passing detention order as well as the committal order. Further, after receipt of opinion from Hon'ble Advisory Board, the detention order has also been confirmed under order dated 26.09.2025. Thus, it appears that all the mandatory provisions have been completed and there appears application of mind and subjective satisfaction on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned order. The criminal record of the petitioner is such in nature that if he is released, then he can be dangerous to the public at large. In view of the same, we are not inclined to set-aside the impugned (9) Cri. W. P. 1330 -2025.odt orders. As such, the petition stands dismissed.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/