Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
IJV, SNB
HIMANSHU @ SONU @ HITESH PARMANANDBHAI BHANUMAL WADHWANI THRO MAHEK W/O HIMANSHU @ SONU @ HITESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City dated 28.02.2025, whereby the petitioner is detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, mere filing of FIR against the petitioner itself is no ground, for the detaining authority, to arrive at the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is further submitted that, no legally sustainable satisfaction is recorded by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order and therefore the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State Authorities has supported the detention order passed by the detaining authority and has submitted that the impugned order is based on sufficient material and the detaining authority has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to th
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence of activities being prejudicial to public order, not merely based on FIRs, as established by the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act.
Preventive detention requires a clear distinction between law and order versus public order; mere FIRs do not justify detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act.
The court ruled that mere disturbance of law and order does not justify preventive detention under the Act, emphasizing the need for a legally sustainable basis for such orders.
Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act requires substantial evidence of activities prejudicial to public order, not merely the existence of FIRs.
Preventive detention requires substantive justification beyond mere FIRs; mere disturbance of law and order does not suffice for detention under the Act.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence that activities are prejudicial to public order, not merely law and order disturbances.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence of activities prejudicial to public order, not merely the filing of FIRs.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence demonstrating that a person's activities are prejudicial to public order, not merely based on FIRs.
Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act requires clear evidence of activities prejudicial to public order, not merely the existence of FIRs.
Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act requires clear justification that activities are prejudicial to public order, not merely based on FIRs.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.