GUJARAT HIGH COURT
K.S. Jhaveri, J.
Bharatbhai Jivrajbhai Limbasiya —Appellants
versus
State of Gujarat and Ors. —Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 1946 of 2015
Decided On: 01.05.2015
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:K.S. Chandrani, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Rakesh Patel, AGP
IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because an offence registered under Arms Act that by itself not sufficient to come to conclusion that public order disturbed.
Headnote:Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 — Section 3 (2)(c) — Indian Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(1)(1-B) & 27(1) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 506(2) and 114 — Bombay Police Act — Section 135 — Preventive Detention — Challenged — Nothing to show that detenu is habitual offender — Criminal case registered against detenu and others for offences punishable u/S. 506(2) & 114 of IPC — Section 135 of Bombay Police Act and Section 25(1-B) (AB) of Arms Act — HELD — Not sufficient to detain and to characterise as ‘dangerous person’ curtailing life and liberty. (Para 16)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention dated 10.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the PASA Act’) and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention.
2. The order of detention along with the grounds supplied to the detenue are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has been detained labeling him as a “dangerous person” as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the PASA Act. The grounds of detention are also suggestive of the fact that the detaining authority has taken into consideration a case registered with the Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot vide CR No. II-57/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1)(1-B)A and 27(1) of the Arms Act. The status of the F.I.R. has been shown as “pending in the court”. The subjective satisfaction as reflected from the grounds are to the effect that the detenue is indulging in the offences falling within Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. His highhanded actions create a situation of disturbance of public order. On these grounds, the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot has ordered detention of the petitioner.
3. Mr.K.S. Chandrani, the learned advocate appearing for the detenue submitted that the order of detention is malicious, unjust and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that there is no material available with the detaining authority to indicate that the detenue is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(c) of the PASA Act nor there is any material or antecedent to show that he is a habitual offender and involved in antisocial activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is his case that this order of detention is nothing but abuse of power at the hands of the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot.
4. On the other hand, this petition has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Rakesh Patel, the learned AGP appearing for the State. According to learned AGP, there are sufficient grounds to issue the detention order. Learned AGP has submitted that the detention order was issued after careful consideration of the materials available before the detaining authority.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the order of detention deserves to be quashed.
6. I am concerned only with the question as to whether there are sufficient grounds and materials available to detain the detenue in prison without trial in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the PASA Act, describing him as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Act on the basis of the F.I.R. registered against the detenue.
7. On plain reading of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the incident in question was such which disturbed the public order, peace and tranquility.
8. I am of the view that merely because an offence is registered under the Arms Act that by itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the public order has been disturbed.
9. At this stage, it would be expedient to quote the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ramesh Vandha Modhwadiya through brother, Laxmanbhai Vandha v. State of Gujarat, 2009(3) GLH 296 wherein in paragraph 11, the Division Bench has observed as under:—
“11. PASA Act has been enacted with a clear object to prevent the crime and to protect the society from anti-social elements and dangerous characters against perpetration of crime by placing them under detention for such a duration as would disable them from resorting to undesirable criminal activities. The provisions of the Act are intended to deal with habitual criminals, dangerous and desperate outlaws, who are so hardened an