Facts: Aditya Shailendra Mane was detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous persons and video pirates Act, 1981 ("MPDA Act"). The detention order was based on a single incident (Crime No. 660 of 2025) where he allegedly assaulted a person to dissuade him from a love relationship. The detaining authority considered previous offences from 2021-2023 and in-camera statements. The petitioner argued that he cannot be termed a "dangerous person" and that the incident does not constitute a threat to public order. He was released on bail in Crime No. 660 of 2025, and the bail order was not challenged.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner challenged the detention order by filing a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur.
Issue: 1. Can a single incident of assault, stemming from a personal dispute, constitute a sufficient basis for detention under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act? 2. Can antecedents considered for earlier fully executed detention, form a material to be used for subsequent detention? 3. Does the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, based on in-camera statements and a single incident, justify detention under the MPDA Act?
Holding: The High Court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the petitioner's release.
Reasoning: The Court found that the single incident was individualistic and did not constitute a threat to public order. The Court emphasized the difference between "law and order" and "public order," citing Kuso Sah Vs. State of Bihar. The Court noted that the in-camera statements did not inspire confidence and were obtained while the petitioner was in custody. The Court also highlighted the unexplained delay between the in-camera statements and the detention order. The Court observed that the authorities did not challenge the bail order. The Court held that Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act should be used in exceptional circumstances to protect public order and not as a tool to keep a person consistently behind bars. The court referenced a prior order in Criminal Writ Petition no. 2867 of 2025 dated 18-12-2025 (Omkar alias Tedya Umesh Satpute Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) to support the distinction between individualistic acts and public disorder.