Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ilesh J. Vora, S.V. Pinto, JJ.
Gambhirsinh @ Pintu Manubhai Jadeja Through Parmar Ayendrasinh Pravinsinh - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondent
Special Criminal Application No. 15571 of 2024
Decided On : 03-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rohankumar M Amin
For the Respondent: Mr. L.B. Dabhi, APP
IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order; mere disturbances of law and order do not justify such action under the Act.
Headnote:
(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3(4) - Preventive detention - Legality of detention order challenged - Court found insufficient evidence to justify detention based on alleged activities affecting public order - Detention order quashed. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Distinction between law and order and public order - Mere disturbance of law and order insufficient for preventive detention. (Paras 9.1, 9.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained as a 'dangerous person' under the Act based on six criminal cases. The petitioner contended that the detention lacked a nexus to public order. (Para 5)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the activities of the petitioner did not affect public order and that the detention order was not legally sustainable. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: Whether the detention order was justified under the Act based on the alleged activities of the petitioner. (Para 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detaining authority failed to establish that the petitioner's activities adversely affected public order, emphasizing the distinction between law and order and public order. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: Petition allowed; detention order quashed.
JUDGMENT :
S.V. Pinto, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondent State.
2. The petitioner herein namely Gambhirsinh @ Pintu Manubhai Jadeja came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 09.11.2024 (Actually detained on 11.11.2024) passed by the District Magistrate, Surendranagar, as a “dangerous person” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred as ‘the Act of 1985).
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Rohankumar Amin and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respective parties.
5. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the grounds of detention has no nexus to the “public order”, but is a purely a matter of law and order, as registration of the offence cannot be said to have either affected adversely or likely to affect adverse the maintenance of public order as contemplated under the explanation sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, 1985 and therefore, where the offences alleged to have been committed by the detunue have no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order and his activities could be said to be a prejudicial only to the maintenance of law and order and not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the application contended that, the detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected at the society at large. In such set of circumstances, the Detaining Authority, considering the antecedents and past activities of the detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Surendranagar.
7. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, the issue arise as to whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?
8. The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of six criminal cases i.e. (i) for the offence under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act dated 17.06.2021 with Dhrangadhra City Police Station (ii) for the offence under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act dated 15.03.2023 with Dhrangadhra City Police Station (iii) for the offence under Section 186 of IPC dated 17.10.2023 with Dhrangadhra City Police Station (iv) for the offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act dated 01.12.2023 with Dhrangadhra City Police Station (v) for the offence under Sections 394 and 452 of IPC and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act dated 25.03.2024 with Dhrangadhra City Police Station and (vi) for the offence under Sections 323, 504 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act dated 18.06.2024 with Dhrangadhra City Police Station was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “dangerous person” affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985. Admittedly, in all the said offences, the petitioner was granted bail.
9. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of six criminal cases, the authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenue could be termed to be acting in a manner ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’. In our opinion, the said offences do not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissione
