Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
IJV, SNB
HANIF @ MONU S/O HARUN SHEKH THRO SAYRA HARUN SHEKH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City dated 08.03.2025, 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 the maintenance of the public order. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.
4.1 Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence demonstrating that a person's activities are prejudicial to public order, not merely based on FIRs.
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.
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.
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.
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 of activities being prejudicial to public order, not merely based on FIRs, as established by the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act.
The court ruled that mere FIRs do not justify detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act if the activities do not affect public order.
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.
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
