Archive · 8 Sep 2026
Bombay High Court Quashes Pregnant Woman’s MPDA Preventive Detention
The Bombay High Court reviewed the detention of Usha Sakat, who was four months pregnant.
Police had detained her under a law allowing preventive detention.
They called her a “bootlegger” because several prohibition-related cases had been registered against her.
The court said most of those cases had not led to her arrest.
It also found problems with the evidence used to classify her.
Sakat had already signed a bond promising good behaviour.
The judges said police could have acted under ordinary law if they believed she broke that bond.
The court cancelled the detention order and ordered her release unless she was needed in another case.
The Bombay High Court ordered Usha Sakat’s immediate release after quashing her June 30 preventive-detention order.
Sakat, who was four months pregnant, had been detained in Kolhapur Central Prison as a “bootlegger” under the MPDA Act.
The court noted that 11 alleged Maharashtra Prohibition Act offences were registered against her between 2023 and 2025, but she was arrested only once.
Judges found that police relied mainly on one February 2026 offence and two confidential witness statements that did not properly support the “bootlegger” classification.
The court said police should have used available legal powers to address an alleged bond violation before claiming ordinary laws were insufficient.
- Who
- Usha Sakat, the Maharashtra police and the Bombay High Court bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsle.
- What
- The court quashed Sakat’s preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act and ordered her release.
- When
- The detention order was dated June 30, 2026; the article is dated September 7, 2026. The relevant alleged offence occurred in February 2026.
- Where
- Sakat had been detained in Kolhapur Central Prison, and the case was heard by the Bombay High Court.
- Why
- The court found that police had not used available ordinary legal remedies and had improperly concluded that Sakat qualified as a “bootlegger.”
Petitioner and Court’s Concerns
State and Police Position
Need for preventive detention
Petitioner and Court’s Concerns
Sakat argued that continued detention was unnecessary and that ordinary criminal laws were not inadequate in her case. The court agreed that police had failed to use available legal remedies.
State and Police Position
The State argued that Sakat had repeatedly committed offences and that preventive detention was justified.
Pregnancy and detention conditions
Petitioner and Court’s Concerns
Sakat’s counsel emphasized that she was four months pregnant and argued against her continued detention.
State and Police Position
The State said she would receive proper medical care and facilities during her pregnancy.
Classification and evidence
Petitioner and Court’s Concerns
The court said the confidential statements appeared relevant to a “dangerous person” classification rather than a “bootlegger” classification, showing non-application of mind.
State and Police Position
Police relied on one February 2026 offence and two in-camera witness statements in supporting the detention order.
- Detainee
- Usha Sakat
- Detention law
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA Act)
- Detention order
- Issued June 30, 2026
- Pregnancy
- Sakat was reported to be four months pregnant
- Registered offences
- 11 alleged Maharashtra Prohibition Act offences between 2023 and 2025
- Good-behaviour bond
- Rs 50,000 bond valid until May 2027
- Court action
- Detention quashed and immediate release ordered, unless Sakat was required in another case