Back
A. Y. KOGJE, SAMIR J. DAVE
Salman @ Kanni Nasirbhai Nagori Through Nagori Bilkisbanu Nasir Khan – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. Kogje, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with the following reliefs;
[B] Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention, at Annexure-A, dt. 02.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 in the interest of justice.”
2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, City: Ahmedabad detaining the petitioner as a “dangerous person”. The grounds of detention would indicate that the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” on the basis of two IPC offences registered against the petitioner with Gaikwad Haveli Police Station.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the nature of offence, as is evident from the gist of the FIRs which is part of the record, would indicate that the FIRs are registered for offences which are arising out of private
The detaining authority must differentiate between offences affecting 'public order' and 'law and order' when issuing a detention order.
The need for a live link between offences to justify detention as a dangerous person under PASA and the requirement of disturbance to public order in the nature of the offences.
The detention order must have a live and proximate link between prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention, and delay in passing the detention order can vitiate the detention order.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the alleged offences in relation to public order and highlighted the impact of delay in passing the order of detention.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.
The judgment established the principle that preventive detention should be invoked only when there is a clear impact on public order, and the detaining authority should consider lesser drastic remedi....
The importance of considering the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' and the impact of delay in passing the detention order.
Preventive detention can be ordered even on the basis of a solitary incident, provided there is justifiable subjective satisfaction on objective material that the incident is likely to create disturb....
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
