Bombay High Court

Bombay HC: Missing Papers and Invalid Arms Charges Lead to Release of Nanded Worker

Updated
Feb 5, 2026 3:24 PM
bombay-hc-missing-papers-and-invalid-arms-charges-lead-to-release-of-nanded-worker

Quick Summary: Santosh @Chingya Sainath Tarte from Nanded challenged his detention under the MPDA Act. The court found problems with the detention process and ordered his release.

The Case Begins: Santosh's Detention

Santosh @Chingya Sainath Tarte, a 24-year-old worker from Khobragade Nagar, Nanded, was detained on 8th August 2025. The District Magistrate of Nanded used the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, calling Santosh a "dangerous person" who was a threat to public safety.

Legal Challenge: Santosh Fights Back

Santosh's lawyer, Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosle, argued that the detention was based on weak reasons. Even though Santosh had past criminal cases, the detention heavily relied on two recent charges under the Arms Act and unclear secret witness statements.

"The detention order shows a lack of thought," noted the court.

Court's Observations: Missing Papers and Unclear Statements

The court, led by Judges Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, pointed out that the detention order was missing important papers like bail applications. The secret statements were found to be unclear and lacked specific details.

Arms Act Charges: A Legal Mistake

The detention was partly based on charges under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. However, the court found no official rule from the Central Government banning arms possession in the area, making these charges invalid.

Court's Decision: Release Ordered

On 4th February 2026, the court overturned the detention order, citing a lack of proper legal process and not enough evidence connecting Santosh to public disorder.

"Preventive detention is not meant to punish for past actions but to prevent future behavior that threatens public safety."

Santosh's Release

Santosh's release shows the importance of following legal procedures in detention cases. The court's decision highlights the need for solid evidence and proper paperwork in ensuring justice.

Tags:
Preventive Detention
Public Safety
Criminal Law