Nagpur: A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Raj Wakode set aside the Jan 20 detention order passed by Pune police commissioner against Shrinath alias Tikya Ashok Shelar and directed he be released forthwith if not required in any other offence.The court found the detention order failed to demonstrate any prevailing circumstances showing ordinary legal provisions were inadequate to curb the petitioner’s alleged activities. It also noted the authority had relied principally on two in-camera statements of secret witnesses, neither of which was signed by the respective witnesses.The court examined 10 criminal cases cited against Shelar, registered between 2016 and 2025, along with preventive action previously taken against him, including externment from Pune police commissionerate and district for a year in 2018 and execution of a bond in 2021.The detention authority also relied on a crime registered under Sections 118(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the case record, the alleged incident followed a verbal altercation between Shelar and another man at Zagadewadi in Pune on Oct 4, 2025. The complainant, who intervened in the dispute, was allegedly assaulted by Shelar and four others. After Shelar was arrested, he challenged it through counsel Mir Nagman Ali in HC.The judges said preventive detention is an exceptional power and must be strictly construed. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, they stressed that every breach of law does not amount to a disturbance of public order.“The contravention of law always affects order, but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or public at large,” the court observed, quoting the Constitution bench judgment in Ram Manohar Lohia versus State of Bihar.The bench further held the detention order did not establish the alleged acts had caused harm, danger, alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the people, as contemplated under MPD Act.“Preventive detention laws, an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergency situations, ought not to have been invoked as a tool for enforcement of law and order,” the court said.The court also noted that Shelar had been granted bail in the criminal case relied on by the detaining authority and said greater caution was required when preventive detention was sought based on the same allegations being dealt with under ordinary criminal law.“Power to detain a person without the safeguard of a court trial is too drastic to permit a lenient construction,” the judgment said, stressing the need for scrutiny of material relied upon by detaining authority.Concluding the detention order was legally unsustainable, the court allowed Shelar’s petition and quashed the Jan 20 order.#Key takeawaysHC quashed preventive detention of 28-year-old Pune resident under MPD ActHeld the allegations raised a “law and order” issue, not “public order” disturbanceDetention order cited 10 criminal cases registered between 2016 and 2025HC found no material showing harm, danger, alarm or insecurity among the publicStressed preventive detention is an exceptional power requiring strict scrutinyDetention order was quashed and release directed if not required elsewhere
