Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
NILESH @ LALO S/O KANCHANLAL AJMERI THRO YOGESHKUMAR S/O AMRUTLAL RANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(ILESH J. VORA, J.)
1. The petitioner herein namely Nilesh @ Lalo S/o. Kanchanlal Ajmeri came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) 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 Mr.Viral Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.B. Dabhi learned APP 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 of 1985 and therefore,
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Act requires activities to adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention cannot be justified solely on allegations that do not demonstrate a clear threat to public order, distinguishing it from mere law and order issues.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence that a person's activities adversely affect public order, not just law and order.
Preventive detention requires a clear demonstration that the individual's activities adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus between alleged activities and public order; mere law and order disturbances are insufficient.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear link between the alleged activities and public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear nexus to public order, not merely law and order disturbances.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear connection to public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention requires activities to adversely affect public order, not merely law and order; mere criminal acts are insufficient for detention under the Act.
Preventive detention requires a clear link between the detainee's actions and public order disruption, not merely law and order violations.
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
Listen Article