...
...
Next Story

Bombay HC quashes one-year detention order against Pune teen under MPDA

His lawyers argued that the mere registration of criminal cases could not, by itself, justify detention under the stringent provisions of the MPDA Act.

Published on: Oct 6, 2026, 07:58:30 IST
By
Prefer HTon Google
Advertisement

PUNE: The Bombay High Court on October 3 quashed a one-year preventive detention order issued by the Pune police against a 19-year-old man under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, observing that the material relied upon by the authorities did not establish that his activities posed a threat to public order.

Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)
Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

A division bench of Justices Ranjit More and Sarang Kotwal passed the order on a petition filed by Aman Ismail Khan, challenging the detention order issued by the Pune police commissioner under the MPDA Act. The bench delivered the order on October 3, and a copy was made available on Monday.

According to the petition, police had described Khan as a violent and dangerous person and alleged that his activities posed a threat to the lives and property of people. Khan, through advocates Ibrahim Shaikh and Ashrafali Shaikh, challenged the order, arguing that the material before the authorities did not establish that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The lawyers argued that the mere registration of criminal cases could not, by itself, justify detention under the stringent provisions of the MPDA Act.

The defence also submitted that Khan was 19 years old and had not committed any serious offence of the nature alleged against him.

After examining the material placed before it and considering the submissions, the High Court found that the requirements for passing a preventive detention order had not been adequately established.

 
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Notifications

Get breaking alerts directly from the newsroom

Notifications are on!You'll be notified when news breaks