ILESH J. VORA, VIMAL K. VYAS
Mahamad Aakib @ Baba Mahamad Aasif Gulamnabi Shaikh Thro Mahamad Aasif Gulamnabi Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The present petition is directed against the order of detention dated 25.01.2024 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 three FIRs; (i) for the offences under Sections 65(a)(a), 116B, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act; (ii) for the offences under Sections 65(a) (a), 116B, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act; (iii) for the offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 116B, 81, 83 of the Prohibition Act; respectively, and that by itself cannot bring the case of the petitioner - detenue within the purview of definition under Section 2(b) of the Act. Learned advocate for the petitione
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar
Pushkar Mukherjee and others vs. The State of West Bengal
Mallada K. Sri Ram vs. The State of Telangana
Mallada K. Sri Ram vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. 2022 6 SCALE 50
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order disturbances, 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 requires a clear connection to public order disturbance, 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 link between alleged activities and a disturbance to public order, 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 substantial evidence linking the detainee's actions to a threat to public order, not merely the registration of FIRs.
Preventive detention must demonstrate a clear threat to public order, not merely rely on criminal charges or FIRs.
Preventive detention under the Act requires a clear nexus to public order disturbances, not merely 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.