SHUBHAM BALASAHEB KARDULE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — WP/135/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227,14,19,21,22. Disposed: Contested--RULE ABSOLUTE on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030033062026

e-Filing Number

14-01-2026

Filing Number

WP/838/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

WP/135/2026

Registration Date

22-Jan-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--RULE ABSOLUTE

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,227,14,19,21,22
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 Section 3(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHUBHAM BALASAHEB KARDULE

    Adv. Z. H. Farooqui

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

    Adv. APP for R.Nos.1 to 4. 1123

  2. 2.The District Magistrate, Beed

  3. 3.The District Superintendent of Police

  4. 4.Jail Superintendent

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/135/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the petition and quashed the detention order against Shubham Balasaheb Kardule, a 25-year-old laborer detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act as an alleged "sand smuggler." The court found the detention order legally unsustainable because: (1) the FIR allegations showed only that the petitioner removed a tractor head from police custody, with no evidence he engaged in unauthorized sand extraction, transportation, or storage—failing to satisfy the statutory definition of "sand smuggler"; and (2) the in-camera witness statements relied upon were vague, unverified, and lacked specific details, violating Article 22(5) constitutional safeguards. The court also distinguished between "law and order" and "public order," holding that a single incident without a "live link" to imminent public disturbance cannot justify preventive detention. Consequently, all detention and confirmation orders were quashed and the petitioner ordered released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    For Admission - Fresh - Criminal Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/135/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/135/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the petition and quashed the detention order against Shubham Balasaheb Kardule, a 25-year-old laborer detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act as an alleged "sand smuggler." The court found the detention order legally unsustainable because: (1) the FIR allegations showed only that the petitioner removed a tractor head from police custody, with no evidence he engaged in unauthorized sand extraction, transportation, or storage—failing to satisfy the statutory definition of "sand smuggler"; and (2) the in-camera witness statements relied upon were vague, unverified, and lacked specific details, violating Article 22(5) constitutional safeguards. The court also distinguished between "law and order" and "public order," holding that a single incident without a "live link" to imminent public disturbance cannot justify preventive detention. Consequently, all detention and confirmation orders were quashed and the petitioner ordered released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case