Wielding Deadly Weapon Like 'Koyta', & Threatening People Is 'Individualistic', Does Not Harm Public Order: Bombay High Court

The act of wielding a deadly weapon like 'koyta' in the middle of the road is not an act prejudicial to public order that can cause public disorder or disturb the even tempo of life, held the Bombay High Court while quashing the preventive detention of a woman in Pune.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale noted from the material on record, particularly the statements of two in-camera witnesses, who spoke about the petitioner Nilofer Shaikh wielding a deadly weapon (koyta) in the middle of the road, extorting money and threatening people. However, the judges held that this act of the petitioner was 'largely individualistic' and did not cause harm to the public order.

"We are in agreement with the contention of the Petitioner that, the instances on which the Detention Order dated May 5, 2025 relies i.e FIR and the in-camera statements of witness 'A' and witness 'B', do not disclose that the acts and/or conduct of the detenue was of such a nature and gravity that the same would be termed as 'act or activities prejudicial to public order' or that the conduct of the detenue caused public disorder or disturbed the even tempo of life. We are of the opinion that, in the present case, a perusal of the statement in respect of FIR and the in-camera statements, would indicate that, the acts complained of are largely individualistic in nature and not against the public order or the public or the society. The acts complained appeared to be vexed against a particular individual," the judges held in the order pronounced on December 15.

The conduct of the detenue in the present case appears to be an act which affects the law and order and not the public order, the bench maintained, while adding, "In our opinion, the wrong doings/wrongful acts of the Detenue do not impact the society so to say adversely affecting the general public to instill a feeling of fear, panic or insecurity. A natural reaction of prudence of the public in staying away from trouble makers or keeping away from trouble makers cannot be said or construed to be a result of the general disturbance to public tranquility that affects public order."

Further, the judges emphasised that every breach of peace cannot be construed to mean disturbance of the general public or disturbing the even tempo of the society as it is well settled that acts prejudicial to public order are acts which affect the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or may be even a specified locality.

"Each infraction of law or wrongdoing, is bound to in some manner or extent lead to a disorder, but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder. Such infractions of law/wrongdoings can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order. Every breach of the peace does not lead to a public disorder. For such infractions one does not need to invoke the provisions of preventive detention laws," the bench observed.

The judges opined that in order to invoke the preventive detention laws, the infraction of law or act complained of should be of such a nature that, if public order is disturbed, it must necessarily lead to public disorder.

"The infraction of law or wrongful act or conduct to affect public order should be of such a nature and gravity that it affects the community or the public at large. It ought to have an adverse impact on the community as whole or the general public even if in some cases restricted to a specific locality. The resultant adverse impact of the act, should evoke feelings of fear, panic and or insecurity," the judges opined.

With these observations, the bench made it clear that the acts of the detenue in the instant case, are directed against individuals, though unruly and/or harsh do not disturb the general public or society to such an extent as to cause a disturbance in the equilibrium of the society or of public tranquility.

"The acts of the detenue, in the present case, are not of such a degree or level so as to disturb the even tempo of life. In view thereof and considering the incidents relied upon the in the present case, we are of the clear view that the conduct and wrong doings attributed to the detenue cannot be termed as acts prejudicial to public order. The same are individualistic acts against certain persons which can be termed as a law and order issue and dealt with accordingly," the bench held.

The judges further pulled up the detaining authority for its 'unexplained' delay of 60 days, of which 20 were public holidays. The bench emphasised that in such matters, the detaining authority cannot take advantage of public holidays and delay deciding the representation of the detenue.

It therefore quashed and set aside the preventive detention order and ordered the petitioner's immediate release, if not wanted in some other case.

Appearance:

Advocates Misbaah Solkar, Faiza Gawandi, Nawaz Dordi and Amin Solkar appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Shreekant Gavand represented the State.

Case Title: Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh vs Commissioner of Police, Pune City (Criminal Writ Petition No 3471 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Order