The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court quashed the order against the resident of Nanded, saying that only keeping a dagger does not create a law and order situation or there is no disruption in the public system.A bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh said that the allegations against petitioner Deepak alias Lolya Tarasingh Mohil alias Thakur do not justify preventive custody under the Prevention of Maharashtra dangerous activities (MPDA) Act.
Also read: Illegal gambling and chicken battle base was caught in Telangana farmhouse, 64 people arrested
Mohil, a resident of Nanded, was detained after an order issued by the Maharashtra Home Department on 19 March 2024, based on the Nanded District Magistrate’s earlier order of 1 February 2024. The authorities classified him as a “dangerous person” under the MPDA Act citing his involvement in crimes affecting public system.
The case against Mohil is mainly related to a criminal offense lodged at the Itwara police station, where he was allegedly found to be dagger on August 10, 2023. In addition, in two in-camera statements filed by the detained officer, he has been accused of forcibly recovering 3,000 from one person in July 2023 and 2,000 from another person in August 2023.
However, the bench found the detention order unfair and said that keeping weapons is not necessarily an issue of public system. The court also said that the incidents of alleged forced recovery were different and it did not affect community peace.
Also read: India’s indigenous missile system associated with the name of Lord Shiva’s bow Pinak, what did Modi talk about on the defense deal with Macron?
The bench said, “Both alleged incidents are of different nature. The issue of public arrangements was not included here.”Citing the decisions of the Supreme Court, the bench stressed that preventive custody is an extreme measure and should be used carefully. The court emphasized that the subjective satisfaction of the officer who kept in custody should be based on sufficient content, not on sporadic incidents.
The court also exposed the procedural flaws, including a delay of 12 days in approving the detention order and a three -week delay in sending the case to the Advisory Board. It admitted that such delay weakens the justification of continuous custody of Mohil.
Bypassing the detention order, the court ruled that Mohil should be released immediately, unless it needs it in any other case.
