IBBU KASHIM @ KASIM NURIWALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State at the admission stage.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a bootlegger, has challenged the order No.2025/RB-Desk-1/POL-1/MPDA-12 dtd. 30/06/2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Beed, whereby he has been detained and also the approval order dtd. 09/07/2025 and the order dtd. 29/08/2025 passed by the Sec. Officer, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), on the ground that the said orders are arbitrary and have been issued without proper subjective satisfaction, by invoking powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. S. J. Salunke, appearing for the petitioner, submits that respondent No. 2 has considered only two offences .i.e. Crime No. 30 of 2025 under Sec. 65(f)(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and Crime No. 49 of 2025 under Sec. 65(f) of the said Act. Both registered with Ambajogai (Rural) Police Station, out of total nine crimes and one preventive action under Sec. 93 of the Prohibition Act. He further points out that, in the preventive action, a final bond of Rs.25,000.00 has already been taken from the petitioner. He submits that respondent No. 2 has erroneously relied upon the statements of secret witnesses "A" and "B" to conclude that there was a disturbance to public order. According to him, those statements are stereotype and at the most, could reflect a breach of personal security, but do not amount to disturbance of public order. He specifically submits that though it is alleged that the petitioner is dealing in country-made liquor, no Chemical Analyzer's reports in respect of the two crimes were placed before the Detaining Authority to substantiate that the petitioner was involved in the sale of illicit country liquor at the relevant time. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the alleged liquor was containing poisonous material to deter the public health. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on the following judgments.