Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 671
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
RAVI RAMESHVARSINH MATAPRASAD RAJPUT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4015 of 2025
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order, not merely law and order disturbances, to be lawful.
Headnote:
(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3(4) - Preventive detention order challenged on grounds of legality and validity - Detenue claimed activities did not affect public order, but law and order - Court noted that activities did not substantiate a threat to public order as per legal standards established in relevant case law. (Paras 4, 6, 8, 9)
(B) Distinction between public order and law and order - Mere disturbance of law and order is insufficient for preventive detention; must affect community at large. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained as a 'dangerous person' under the Act based on four criminal cases, but all were bailable. The petitioner argued that the detention lacked a nexus to public order.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to support the detention order, stating it did not affect public order.
Issues: Whether the detention order was sustainable under the Act given the nature of the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that actions leading to mere law and order disturbances do not justify preventive detention under the Act.
Result: Petition allowed; detention order quashed.
ORDER :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The petitioner herein namely Ravi Rameshvarsinh Mataprasad Rajput came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 08.03.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, 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. S. G. Jaiswal 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, 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 Ahmedabad.
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 323, 294(B), 114 and under Section 135(1) of G.P. Act dated 11.05.2024 with Nikol Police Station, (ii) for the offence under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 296B, 351(3) and Section 135(1) of G.P. Act dated 19.10.2024 with Krushnanagar Police Station, (iii) for the offence under Sections 326(J,) 351(4), 324(4), 54 dated 11.12.2024 with Nikol Police Station, (iv) for the offence under Sections 115(2), 324(4), 296B, 351(3), 351(4), 54 and Section 135(1) of G. P. Act dated 24.12.2024 with Nikol 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
