Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
Nilesh @ Dodo Dineshbhai Patni Thro Sangitaben Dineshbhai Patni - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Criminal Application No. 16438 of 2024
Decided On : 02-01-2025
For the Applicant : Mr. M.M. Shaikih, Mr. Uvesh M. Shaikh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jay Mehta APP.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires evidence that activities affect public order, not just law and order.
Headnote:
(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3 - Preventive detention - Legality of detention order challenged - Detaining authority failed to establish that activities of the petitioner affected public order - Mere law and order issues not sufficient for preventive detention. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
(B) Detention - Distinction between law and order and public order - Activities must affect the community at large to justify preventive detention - Previous case law referenced for clarification. (Paras 8, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained as a 'dangerous person' under the Act of 1985, with allegations of habitual offences but granted bail in all cases. The legality of detention was challenged on grounds that offences did not affect public order.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to support the detention order, emphasizing the distinction between law and order versus public order.
Issues: Whether the detention order was sustainable under the Act of 1985 and if the alleged activities affected public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere disturbances of law and order do not justify preventive detention unless they affect the community significantly.
Result: Petition allowed; detention order quashed.
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The petitioner herein namely Nilesh @ Dodo Dineshbhai Patni came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, as a “dangerous person” as defined underSection 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. M. M. Shaikh and Mr. Jay Mehta, 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 382 with S. 135(1) of GP Act dated 19.08.2022 with Meghaninagar Police Station, (ii) for the offence under Sections 324, 323, 294(B), 506(2) and 114 with S.135(1) of GP Act dated 22.06.2023 with Meghaninagar Police Station, (iii) for the offence under Sections 324, 323, 294(B) and 114 with S.135(1) of GP Act dated 08.07.2023 with Meghaninagar Police Station, (iv) for the offence under Sections 331(3), 331(4) dated 04.11.2024 with Meghaninagar Police Station, registered against the petitioner under the BNS/Indian Penal Code (old) 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 Act. Paras-17 & 18 are relevant to refer, which r
