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
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
TEJENDRASINH JAYENDRASINH KISHORSINH PARMAR THROUGH PARMAR ALKABEN JAYENDRASINH – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD CITY – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The petitioner herein namely Tejendrasinh Jayendrasinh Kishorsinh Parmar came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 27.02.2025 (07.03.2025) 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 learned counsel Mr. K. N. Dave, and Mr. Niraj Sharma, 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 of 1985 and therefore, where t
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 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 requires a clear nexus to public order; mere law and order violations do not justify such 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 requires a clear nexus between alleged activities and public order; mere law and order disturbances are insufficient.
Preventive detention requires a clear link between the detainee's actions and public order disruption, not merely law and order violations.
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 clear evidence that a person's activities adversely affect public order, not just law and order.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires activities to affect public order, not merely law and order.
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