Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, M. R. MENGDEY
Ghanshyam Derubhai Budhelia – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. Draft amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith.
1.1 Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 11.07.2023 passed by the respondent-detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the petitioner-detenue as defined under section 2(b) of the Act.
3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of the three FIRs for the offences (i) under Sections 65(A)(E), 81 and 116(b) of the Prohibition Act, (ii) under Sections 65(A)(E), 116(b), 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act and (iii) under Sections 65(A)(E), 81, 83, 116(b) and 98(2) of the P.B. Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(b) of the Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, c
Mere registration of FIRs cannot be the sole basis for invoking power under preventive detention laws, and the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' is crucial in determining the leg....
Preventive detention should not be used as a remedy when other penal laws are sufficient, and there must be a nexus between the alleged activity and the breach of maintenance of public order as requi....
The main legal point established is that preventive detention under the Act requires material showing a threat to public order, and mere registration of FIRs for specific offenses may not be sufficie....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a disturbance to the community at large to constitute a breach of public order under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities A....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere registration of FIRs does not necessarily constitute a breach of public order as required under the Prevention of Anti Social Activit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of FIR alone does not establish a nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order as required by the Gujarat Prevention ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the detention under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act must be based on a genuine threat to public order, and mere registration o....
The judgment emphasizes the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order', highlighting that the mere registration of FIRs for offenses may not necessarily indicate a breach of public order ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' as it pertains to the application of preventive detention laws, emphasizing that every d....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
