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 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. The alleged incident followed a verbal altercation between Shelar and another man at Zagadewadi in Pune on Oct 4, 2025, according to the case record.
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 judges said preventive detention is an exceptional power and must be strictly construed. “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. “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 found the detention order failed to demonstrate any prevailing circumstances showing ordinary legal provisions were inadequate to curb the petitioner’s alleged activities. 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. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, they stressed that every breach of law does not amount to a disturbance of public order.
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.