Bombay High Court: Mother's Petition Against Son's Detention Dismissed

Summary: Sangita Nandu Toradmal challenged the detention of her son, Sanket, under the MPDA Act. The court upheld the detention order, dismissing her petition.

Background of the Case

Sangita Nandu Toradmal filed a legal request in the Bombay High Court against the State of Maharashtra and other officials. She challenged the detention of her son, Sanket, who was held under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act. The detention order was issued on November 11, 2024, by the Nashik Police Commissioner.

The Detention Order Details

The detention order was issued because Sanket was allegedly involved in criminal activities, including an assault case registered on September 15, 2024. The order aimed to stop further criminal activities that could disturb public peace.

"The authority in charge concluded that the criminal activities of the Petitioner are negatively affecting public peace."

Grounds for Challenging the Detention

Sangita's lawyer, Smt. Ansari, argued that: 1. The detention order was given without properly explaining the reasons. 2. The authority in charge did not consider the chance of Sanket being released on bail. 3. An important medical certificate related to the case was not provided, affecting the right to defend.

Court's Response to the Arguments

The court, led by Judges A. S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, found no issue with the detention order. They stated that: - The reasons for detention were communicated within the legal timeframe. - The authority considered the possibility of bail and Sanket's potential return to criminal activities. - The missing medical certificate was not essential for the defense.

"The court used rules from previous Supreme Court decisions, stating that preventive detention can be used even if the person is in custody."

Conclusion of the Case

The court dismissed the petition, stating there was no legal mistake in the detention order. The judges emphasized the need to prevent activities that could harm public peace.

"There are no merits in the Petition. There is no legal mistake in passing the Detention Order."

The court decided to keep Sanket in detention, as there were no legal errors in the process.