Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 236
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
BHIMRAJBHAI CHAGANLAL PARMAR THROUGH CHAGANLAL MAKHAJI PARMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3037 of 2025
The court established that preventive detention requires a clear link between alleged activities and public order, not merely law and order issues.
Headnote:
(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3(4) - Preventive detention - The petitioner was detained as a 'dangerous person' but the court found no connection between the alleged offences and public order maintenance - The court emphasized that mere law and order issues do not justify preventive detention - The authority failed to show that the petitioner's activities affected public order. (Paras 4, 8, 9)
(B) Preventive Detention - The distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' is critical - Activities affecting only specific individuals do not warrant preventive detention under the Act. (Paras 8, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged detention based on four criminal cases, claiming they did not affect public order. The authority argued the petitioner was a habitual offender affecting society. (Paras 1, 5, 7)
Findings of Court:
The detention order was quashed as the activities did not affect public order, and the subjective satisfaction of the authority was deemed invalid. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: Whether the detention order was legally sustainable based on the alleged activities of the petitioner. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the activities of the petitioner did not adversely affect public order, highlighting that mere disturbances of law and order do not suffice for preventive detention under the Act. (Paras 8, 18)
Result: Petition allowed; detention order quashed and the petitioner directed to be released.
ORDER :
(ILESH J. VORA, J.)
1. The petitioner herein namely Bhimrajbhai Chaganlal Parmar came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, 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. O. I. Pathan and Mr. Jay Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respective parties.
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 order and not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
5. 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 Vadodara.
6. 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?
7. The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of four criminal cases i.e. (i) for the offence under Sections 303(2), 54 of BNS dated 01.07.2024 with Kapurai Police Station, (ii) for the offence under Sections 379, 114 dated 14.05.2024 with Kapurai Police Station, (iii) for the offence under Sections 379, 114 of IPC dated 01.01.2024 with Kapurai Police Station, (iv) for the offence under Sections 379, 114 of IPC dated 08.01.2024 with Kapurai Police Station, registered against the petitioner under the BNS/Indian Penal Code 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.
8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of four 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. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322 wherein, the detention order was made on the basis of the registration of the two prohibition offences. The Apex Court after referring the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 10 held and observed that mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under preventive detention Act. Paras-17 & 18 are relevant to refer, which read thus:
“17. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, wh
