HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
HARSHADBHAI MOHANLAL PRAJAPATI THROUGH PRAJAPATI RAHUL MOHANBHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The petitioner herein namely Harshadbhai Mohanlal Prajapati came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, 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.Kishan Prajapati learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Meet Thakkar, 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, 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 maintenan
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order; mere law and order violations do not justify such detention under the Act.
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 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 that 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 requires activities to adversely affect public order, not merely law and order; mere criminal acts are insufficient for detention under the Act.
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 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear nexus between alleged activities and public order, which was not established in this case.
Preventive detention requires a clear link between the detainee's actions and public order disruption, not merely law and order violations.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence that a person's activities adversely affect public order, not just law and order.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.