HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
JONIL @ J .D. S/O DILIPBHAI KEVADIYA THROUGH KARTIK DILIPBHAI KEVADIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The present petition is directed against the order of detention dated 07.03.2025 passed by the passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby the respondent - detaining authority has detained the petitioner - detenue as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act.
2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr.Rafik Lokhandwala and Mr.Vinay Vishen, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respective parties.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner - detenue submits that the impugned order of detention is required to be quashed and set-aside since the detaining authority has passed the order of detention solely on the ground of registration of two FIRs being (I) for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and (II) for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sections 144(2), 61(2) of BNS and Section 14(A) and 14(C) of the Foreigner Amendment Act, 2004 and that by itself cannot bring the case of the petitioner - detenue within the purvi
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence that a person's activities threaten public order, not just mere allegations or FIR registrations.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act requires evidence that the detenue's activities adversely affect public order; mere criminal allegations are insufficie....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence that a person's activities adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order disturbances, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
The judgment emphasizes the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order', highlighting that the mere registration of FIRs for offenses may not necessarily indicate a breach of public order ....
Preventive detention requires a clear connection to public order disturbance, not merely the existence of criminal charges.
The registration of FIRs alone may not establish a nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order as required under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.
The detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 requires a nexus between the alleged activity and the breach of public order, and the detaining authority must undertake....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of FIRs alone did not have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order, and no other relevant and cogent materia....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a meaningful exercise and subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in reaching a detention decision, and the need for a clear nexus between the d....
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.