IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10193 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Sd/-

================================================================

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	NO
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	NO
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

================================================================

SURAJ S/O MUKESHBHAI SURVADE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================================

Appearance:

MS SONALBEN C CHAVDA(12531) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 05/07/2023

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 22.04.2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3 (1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the petitioner – detenu as defined under section 2 (c) of the Act.

3. Learned advocate for the detenu submitted that the impugned order of detention of the detenu requires to be quashed and set aside because the detaining authority has passed order of detention solely on the ground of registration of two FIRs for the offences under Sections 34, 323, 379, 504, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenu within the purview of definition under section 2 (c) of the Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenu would not fall under the category of breach of public order. Learned advocate further submitted that it is not possible to hold, on the basis of the facts of the present case, that activity of the detenu with respect to the criminal cases had affected and disturbed the social fabric of society, eventually which would become threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of registration of criminal cases, the detenu had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

4. Mr.Rohan Raval, learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidences were found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenu indicate that detenu is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2 (c) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the documents and material available on record of the case, prima facie, it is found that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document