Pune: Bombay high court has quashed preventive detention of a 34-year-old Pune businessman under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (MPDA Act).The court held that the detaining authority’s (police) satisfaction that “normal laws” were insufficient to curb his alleged gambling activities was vitiated or incorrect, because the available legal steps had not been taken against him before the MPDA Act was invoked.HC also directed that Atul Raju Devkar, the businessman in question, be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case. Devkar had been lodged in Harsul prison in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.The latest order was passed by a division bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Ashish S Chavan on Aug 7, made available on court record on Aug 11, on a petition filed by Devkar. He had challenged the detention order passed against him by the Pimpri Chinchwad commissioner of police (CP) on Dec 29, 2025.Advocate Dwarkadas Bhange, instructed by advocate Pratik Jadhav, appeared for Devkar, while additional public prosecutor MM Deshmukh represented the state.According to Devkar’s petition, seven criminal cases have been registered against him, of which six are under provisions of the MPDA Act, and one pertains to an alleged criminal offence against the human body.The detention order — against which Devkar filed a petition — referred to a gambling offence registered at Dighi police station in Pimpri Chinchwad, under sections 4 and 5 of the MPDA. The offence was registered on Aug 31, 2025, after Devkar was allegedly found gambling with 30 companions on Aug 30. He was arrested the following day and released on the same day.The grounds of the detention later also referred to four in-camera statements. Witness A alleged that Devkar threatened and assaulted him after he asked Devkar to stop his gambling activities. Witness B alleged that Devkar assaulted him with an iron rod after he lost money borrowed from Devkar for gambling, while a companion of Devkar allegedly threatened him with a sickle. The statements of witnesses C and D concerned alleged assaults on their relatives or employers over money they had borrowed for gambling activities from Devkar.The detention authority during the course of the hearings recorded its satisfaction that considering Devkar’s alleged activities, “normal laws are not sufficient to curb his gambling activities”. It further said that it was necessary to detain Devkar to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner in future.The state submitted that Devkar’s activities had continued even after he was directed to execute a bond that he would abstain from indulging in gambling activities. Therefore, the state said, detention was necessary.HC noted that the activities relied upon in the detention grounds, including the registered offence of Aug 31, 2025, had taken place during the subsistence of the two-year bond executed by Devkar on Aug 19 last year. The bench observed that the authorities could have proceeded under section 141 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in the event of a breach. Instead, they imposed MPDA.“Under section 141 of BNSS, it was quite easy for the authorities to take action,” the bench said. It further held that the detaining authority’s conclusion that normal laws were insufficient was incorrect, as “available steps under the normal law were not taken against the petitioner.”
