Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
Lalji @ Kalpeshbhai Rajubhai Rathod Throgh Manishaben Laljibhai Rathod - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application No. 4727 of 2025
Decided on : 11-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR SAHEEL S KADRI
For the Respondent: MS MAITHILI MEHTA
Preventive detention requires that the detainee's activities adversely affect public order, not merely law and order, as established under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act.
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 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. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained as a 'dangerous person' under the Act based on multiple criminal cases, but all were bailable offences. The court examined whether these offences affected public order. (Paras 1, 7)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the detaining authority failed to demonstrate that the petitioner’s activities affected public order, thus the detention order was quashed. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: The main issue was whether the detention order was sustainable under the Act given the nature of the alleged offences. (Paras 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for preventive detention, the activities must affect public order, not just law and order, and the detaining authority's satisfaction must be based on substantial evidence. (Paras 8)
Result: The petition is allowed, and the detention order is quashed.
ORDER :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The petitioner herein namely Lalji @ Kalpeshbhai Rajubhai Rathod came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, 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. Saheel Kadri 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 Bhavnagar.
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 six criminal cases registered against the applicant (i) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act dated 04.07.2023 registered with Ghogha Road Police Station, Bhavnagar and (ii) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 337, 392, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act dated 06.01.2024 registered with Ghogha Road Police Station, Bhavnagar and (iii) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act dated 07.01.2024 registered with Ghogha Road Police Station, Bhavnagar and (iv) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act dated 05.03.2024 registered with Ghogha Road Police Station, Bhavnagar and (v) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 314 and 54 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 135 of G.P. Act and Section 3(2)(5)(a) of Atrocities Act dated 15.10.2024 registered with Ghogha Road Police Station, Bhavnagar and (vi) for the offence punishable under Section 117(2) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 135 of G.P. Act dated 16.02.2025 registered with Ghogha Road Police Station, Bhavnagar 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 six 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
