Bombay HC orders release of man detained for six months as preventive arrest
The Bombay High Court division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice S M Modak said that the explanation for the delay given by authorities is not acceptable and that the delay is “quite unreasonable”.

The Bombay High Court ordered the release of a man detained for around six months as preventive arrest, observing that there was a one-year unexplained delay in passing the detention order against him.
The Bombay High Court division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice S M Modak said that the explanation for the delay given by authorities is not acceptable and that the delay is “quite unreasonable”.
Ikhlaq Shaikh was detained since October 15, 2024 under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The detention order under the Act was passed by the detaining authority of the home department on October 15, 2024, citing Shaikh’s “nefarious activities” in cases of narcotic substances, based on previous offences pending against him. Based on the order, Shaikh was arrested by the RCF police and detained in Aurangabad Central Jail.
His lawyers Munira Palanpurwala and Sumaiya Khan had said that Shaikh was detained without giving him any notice.
They also submitted that Shaikh was released on bail in August 2023 in the last case he was arrested in foor alleged possession of non-commercial quantity of ganja or marijuana.
But the order of preventive detention only came in October 2024, a year after a proposal was initiated by the RCF police in October 2023.
The authorities had cited reasons for delays including the Lok Sabha elections held in May 2024 and preparation for the Maharashtra Assembly elections held in November, 2024. It also said that the detention proposal was running into over 1,400 pages and hence it took time to consider it.
The court said that the proposal to initiate Shaikh’s detention itself came after two months of him being granted bail and further delays at every step.
“…we have observed that there is gross delay at every stage in initiating and processing the proposal and ultimately in passing the detention order. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, if the detaining authority was of the opinion that the petitioner’s activities were so prejudicial, the authorities should have acted swiftly and urgently to prevent the petitioner from committing these activities by issuing the Detention Order at the earliest,” the court said.
The court said that the delay in initiating a proposal and the passing of the order remained unexplained and whatever explanation is given, including the elections, is unsatisfactory.