High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Lack of Material Linking Acts to Public Order and Absence of Arms Act Notification

A Division Bench of Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde heard a challenge to a 12‑month preventive detention order dated 08.08.2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Nanded under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA Act), and the State Government’s confirmation dated 17.09.2025. The petitioner, Santosh @Chingya Sainath Tarte, assailed his detention as a “dangerous person” allegedly engaged in activities prejudicial to public order.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention and confirmation orders, holding that the detaining authority failed to apply its mind to critical materials and relied on legally infirm grounds. The Bench found that the order rested primarily on two FIRs under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and on in‑camera statements that were vague and unverified; no Central Government notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act was produced to show prohibition in the area. The Court noted that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and that procedural safeguards under Article 22 must be followed scrupulously. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is settled position of law that, the preventive detention is not mean to punish for past act but to prevent future conduct that threatens public order. It is equally required to be considered, as to whether, mere pendency of criminal cases without a live link to eminent disturbances of public order justify preventive detention, whether it is only concern about law and order or a public order..." The Bench further observed that the impugned order reflected a "non‑application of mind" by the District Magistrate and emphasised that "such vague statements that too without any proper verification cannot be made the basis of preventive detention."

Background

The detention proposal originated from the Shivajinagar Police Station and was routed through the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate, alleging nine prior criminal cases and relying principally on two recent FIRs (Crime No. 593/2025 dated 22.06.2025 and Crime No. 690/2025 dated 19.07.2025) under the Arms Act and two in‑camera witness statements. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the offences under Section 4 of the Arms Act could not support preventive detention in the absence of any notification by the Central Government specifying prohibited arms for the area, and that the two FIRs were falsely registered. Counsel also pointed out that although the detention order acknowledged that the petitioner had been released on bail, no bail applications or orders were placed before the detaining authority or considered, denying the petitioner an effective representation as required under Article 22(5).

The State contended that the petitioner was a habitual offender whose activities caused terror locally, that the District Magistrate formed subjective satisfaction after examining the material, and that Section 5A of the MPDA Act preserved other grounds even if some allegations failed.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India and Shaik Nazneen v. State of Telangana, and on authority of this Court, the Bench applied settled principles: a detaining authority must scrutinise bail conditions when detention is grounded on the same allegations, verify in‑camera statements, and ensure offences under Section 4 Arms Act are supported by a valid Central notification. The Court found no material to show a "live link" between the pending criminal cases and an imminent threat to public order. It held that the reliance on the two Arms Act FIRs collapsed for want of the requisite notification and that the in‑camera statements were cyclostyled, vague and unverified. Consequentially, the Court concluded that the subjective satisfaction required by the MPDA Act was vitiated.

The Writ Petition was allowed; the detention order dated 08.08.2025 and the confirmation dated 17.09.2025 were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule was made absolute.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1490 of 2025 Case Title: Santosh @Chingya Sainath Tarte v. The District Magistrate, Nanded & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosle, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4