Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
Priyanshu Jagdishsinh Basithsinh Rajput Thro Himanshu Jagdishsinh Rajput - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application No. 4567 of 2025
Decided on : 11-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : RAFIK LOKHANDWALA
For the Respondent: MS MAITHILI MEHTA
Preventive detention requires a clear demonstration that the individual's activities adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
Headnote:
(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3 - Preventive detention - The petitioner challenged the detention order claiming it was based on offences affecting law and order rather than public order - The court found that the alleged activities did not adversely affect public order as required by the Act. (Paras 4, 8, 9)
(B) Preventive Detention - The distinction between law and order and public order is crucial; mere disturbances of law and order do not justify preventive detention under the Act. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained as a 'dangerous person' under the Act based on two criminal cases. The court examined whether these offences affected public order. (Paras 1, 7)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the activities of the petitioner did not affect public order, thus the detention order was not sustainable. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the detention order was justified under the provisions of the Act based on the alleged activities of the petitioner. (Paras 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the detaining authority failed to demonstrate that the petitioner's activities affected public order, thus rendering the detention order invalid. (Paras 8)
Result: The petition is allowed, and the detention order is quashed.
ORDER :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The petitioner herein namely Priyanshu Jagdishsinh Basithsinh Rajput came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 18.03.2025 (actual date of detention is 21.03.2025) 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. Rafik Lokhandwala and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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, 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 applicant and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of two criminal cases registered against the applicant (i) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 427 and 114 of IPC dated 16.02.2023 registered with Narol Police Station, Ahmedabad City and (ii) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 506(2) and 427 of IPC and Section 135(1) of G.P. Act dated 07.01.2024 registered with Narol Police Station, Ahmedabad City 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 applicant was granted bail.
8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of two 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 Act. Paras-17 & 18 are relevant to refer, which read thus:
“17. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, where
