Back
A. Y. KOGJE, SAMIR J. DAVE
Sureshkumar Chhogaramji Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following relief:-
2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 04.11.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Sabarkantha-Himmatnagar, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act based on two offences registered against him, details of which are as under:-
| Sr. No. | Name of Police Station | CR No. and date | Sections | Date of bail order |
| 1 | Khedbrahma Police Station | 11209028230500 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023 | 65(A)(E), 116 of the Prohibition Act | 14.09.2023 |
| 2 | Khedbrahma Police Station | 11209028230702 of 2023 dated 07.09.2023 | 65(A)(E), 98(2) of the Prohibition Act | 14.09.2023 |
3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this peti
The detention order must be based on a genuine threat to public order and supported by contemporaneous material. Delay in passing the detention order and lack of contemporaneous material can vitiate ....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence linking detainee's actions to a threat to public order; mere registration of FIRs is insufficient for lawful detention.
The detention order can be challenged on the grounds of delay in passing the order, lack of material connecting alleged anti-social activity with breach of public order, and the availability of alter....
The detention order must have a nexus with the maintenance of public order, and unreasonable delay in passing the order after the petitioner was granted bail can vitiate the detention order.
The delay in passing the order of detention and the sufficiency of the grounds of detention are crucial factors in determining the validity of a detention order.
The need for a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, and the requirement for convincing impact on public order to justify preventive detention.
The registration of FIRs alone cannot establish a nexus with the breach of public order, and the detaining authority must consider alternative measures before resorting to preventive detention.
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
