CASE NAME: Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh v. Commissioner of Police, Pune city
CASE NUMBER: Criminal writ petition no. 3471 of 2025
COURT : High court of judicature Bombay
DATE OF DECISION:15 December 2025
QUORUM :Justice A.S. Gadkari ,Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
FACTS OF CASE
The petitioner Nilofer Ramjan shaikh is the mother of the person in custody, she filed a case in Bombay high court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the wrongful detention of his son on 5 May 2025 which was passed by the commissioner of police, Pune city under section 3(2) of the MPDA act, 1981.
So, the detention order was passed based on one criminal case of 26 January 2025 which was registered on 11 February 2025 and two secret witnesses’ statements saying he threatened people and showed weapons. He was detained in Wardha prison.
Issue before court
Whether his actions really disturb public order?
Whether the detention order was passed on time?
Relevant legal provision
The detention was ordered under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1981 which allows preventive detention when the activities of a person are against public order and can cause disruption in maintaining peace in the country.
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which gives power to the High court to protect the fundamental rights of people including the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Arguments of petitioner
The petitioner argued that the act which was caused was against the individual and did not disturb the public order and it should be handled by the ordinary law and secondly the petitioner pointed out that the last evidence was recorded on 27 February 2025 while the detention order was passed on 5 May 2025 after 60 days and this was unreasonable delay which was not explained properly.
Arguments of the respondents
The state argued that the person detained was a habitual offender and his action was creating fear in public and the detenue was carrying deadly weapons threatening people and extorting money which was affecting public order. Regarding the 60 days delay the state submitted that the period included 20 public holidays which should be excluded from calculation of the delay. Not only this but also the state claimed that the proposal had to pass through different stages and approval so sometime was consumed in that.
Judicial analysis
The court examined the evidence carefully and found both the evidence in the criminal case and in-camera statement were targeted at a particular individual and the court also held that both the evidence did not show any disturbance to society or public order.
By taking the precedent from Supreme court judgment on Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740 and Arjun Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3718 The court explained the distinction between law & order and public order. The court explained that every act does not justify preventive detention and only that affects the community at large is qualified as disturbance of public order.
On the delay period the court rejected the vague procedure excuses even after excluding holidays the 40 days period remained completely unexplained. The court also held that such delay destroys the justifications for preventive detention.
Judgment
The court held that detention was unreasonable and unjustified and it did not cause any public disturbance and their serious unexplained delay and ordered for immediate release of the detenue. Preventive detention requires acts gravely impacting public order not mere breaches of peace and demand swift action without unexplained delays.
Conclusion
The judgment protects the constitutional value of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They also made it clear that preventive detention cannot be used as a shortcut for ordinary criminal prosecution unless the person has truly threatened the peace of society as whole and most importantly the law exists to control crime not to casually imprison people without trial.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: NISHTHA JAIN
