ILESH J. VORA, VIMAL K. VYAS
Sohrabkhan @ Bhanubha Bismillakhan Malek Thro Shrafkhan Manvakhan Malek – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS)
1. The present petition is directed against the order of detention dated 12.04.2024 passed by the respondent – detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) 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.
2. Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner – detenue and learned APP appearing for the respondent – State.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner - detenue submits that the impugned order of detention is required to be quashed and set-aside since the detaining authority has passed the order of detention solely on the ground of registration of nine FIRs, (i) for the offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 116B, 81, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act; (ii) for the offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116B, 81, 83, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act; (iii) for the offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116B, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act; (iv) for the offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116B of the Prohibition Act; (v) for the offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116B, 81, 98(2) of the Prohibition
Shaik Nazneen vs. The State of Telanga and others
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar
Mallada K. Sri Ram vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. 2022 6 SCALE 50
Syed Sabeena vs. The State of Telangana and others
Preventive detention requires a clear link between alleged activities and a disturbance to public order, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention requires a clear demonstration of a threat to public order, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention requires a clear connection to public order disturbance, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention requires a clear connection to public order disturbances, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention cannot be justified solely on FIR registration; a clear threat to public order must be established.
Preventive detention requires a clear connection to public order disturbance, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order disturbances, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention must be based on substantial evidence showing a threat to public order, not merely on the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention must be based on substantial evidence showing a threat to public order, not merely on the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention must be based on substantial evidence showing a threat to public order, not merely on the existence of criminal charges.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.