The Bombay High Court has held that preventive detention cannot be sustained where the Detaining Authority's satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail was based only on the assumption that the offence was not compulsorily punishable with death sentence. The Court observed that such satisfaction was not based on cogent material relating to the investigation.

A division bench of Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale and Justice Sarang V. Kotwal was hearing a petition challenging the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has taken two contrary stands in the detention order, which has affected the Petitioner's right to make earliest effective representation. In Para 2 of the order, it has relied on the Petitioner's past activities and registered offences to arrive at his subjective satisfaction that he was a 'dangerous person'. However, in Para 8, subjective satisfaction has been based on the three registered offences mentioned in paragraph-5 and two 'in-camera' statements.

The Petitioner further argued that the Detaining Authority had shown awareness that the Petitioner's bail application in respect of the last offence was still pending. However, it was mentioned that there was a possibility that he would be released on bail because that offence was not compulsorily punishable with a death sentence.

The Court agreed that the grounds of detention contained contrary stands. Paragraph 2 relied on the Petitioner's past activities, whereas paragraph 8 stated that the satisfaction was based on the three recent offences and two in-camera statements.

The Court further noted that paragraph 2 referred to an offence of attempt to commit murder, whereas none of the offences mentioned in the grounds involved such an offence.

“… none of the offences either in the past or in the offences mentioned in paragraph-5 there is an offence of attempt to commit murder. Therefore, this is clear non application of mind. Also the contrary stands reflected in paragraphs-2 and 8 of the grounds of detention have affected the petitioner's right to make earliest effective representation,” the Court remarked.

The Court also noted that a preventive action resulting in execution of a two-year bond was still in operation when the detention order was passed, and found discrepancies regarding the date on which the relevant chapter case was withdrawn.

Relying on the earlier decisions Aman Yusuf Pathan @ Khan Versus Commissioner of Police and Ors, and Aman Shakir Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr., the Court reiterated:

“… merely by saying that since the offence was not compulsorily punishable with death sentence, the Petitioner was likely to be released on bail; was not sufficient… the Respondent No.1 has based his subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was likely to be released on bail only on the assumption that the offence was not compulsorily punishable with death sentence. It is not based on cogent material relating to that investigation.”

The Court accordingly set aside the detention order dated December 6, 2025 and directed that the Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Pune [Criminal Writ Petition No. 2144 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order