A.J. Shastri, J.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs :-

"12(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions of this Hon'ble High Court, directing the respondents herein to produce relevant papers and records, orders and grounds of detention which is passed against the present petitioner and after perusing the grounds of detention and the role of the petitioner proposed detenu, order of detention which has been passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City and approved by the State Government i.e. the respondent no. 1 may be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice;

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to order that pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, the petitioner may be protected and be further pleased to direct the respondents not to detain the present petitioner in pursuance to the order of detention under PASA Act which has been passed by the respondent no. 2 and approved by the respondent no. 1 in the interest of justice;

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted."

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 10.05.2018 one Khodabhai Velabhai Bharwad resident of Bharwadvaas, Vatva, Ahmedabad has registered a complaint being C.R. No. -70 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 5, 6, (b), 7 and 8(2) (3) of the Gujarat Aninal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 and under Sections 11(e)(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 335 and 336 of the BPMC Act lodged before the Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad against several unknown persons. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor played any role in the commission of alleged offences and though his name has been disclosed by other co-accused persons, resultantly, the petitioner is falsely implicated in the commission of crime. It has been alleged in the complaint that the vehicle in question which was said to have been used is belonging to the ownership of the petitioner and thereby, on the basis of the co-accused statement, though it cannot be admissible piece of evidence, and hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner is apprehending the process of detention. As a result of this, for the aforesaid reliefs, at pre-execution stage, by raising several issues, the petition is brought before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that the order of detention is passed by respondent no. 2 on account of commission of two offences registered under the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, but the order of detention is not executed. It has been stated that the said offences are registered against the several persons and the co-accused who were sought to be detained and actually detained have been dealt with by this Court and their petitions have been allowed. Since the material with respect to those accused and with respect to the present petitioner is almost similar in nature, the present petition may be dealt with by granting the relief even at the pre-execution stage.

4. The petition was originally moved during the vacation i.e. on 05.06.2018 and thereafter notice was made returnable on 22.05.2018 and subsequently, it has come up for consideration in which, it was pointed out on 01.08.2018 that the present petitioner is identically situated to co-accused of Special Civil Application No. 8637 of 2018, this petition may be heard along with the said petition and looking to the material and since the co-ordinate Bench has already protected the co-accused in similar set of circumstance, on 01.08.2018, adinterim relief was continued which was originally granted on 21.06.2018 and with thi