Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, JJ
BASANT @ BASU S/O DAYANIDHI PRADHAN THROUGH ANIL KISHORCHANDRA DAKUA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 29.12.2024 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat 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).
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Arjunsingh B. Chauhan and Ms. Krina P. Calla learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
4. 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
Preventive detention requires a clear link between alleged activities and public order; mere law and order issues do not suffice for detention under the Act.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear link between the alleged activities and public order, not just law and order violations.
Preventive detention requires activities to adversely affect public order, not merely law and order, for legal validity.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear demonstration that the individual's actions adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention requires a clear link between alleged activities and public order; mere law and order issues do not suffice.
Preventive detention requires evidence that activities affect public order, not merely law and order; mere disturbances do not justify detention under the Act.
Preventive detention requires that the activities of the individual must affect public order, not merely law and order, to justify detention under the Act.
Preventive detention requires a clear link between alleged activities and public order; mere law and order issues do not suffice.
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
