Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 3942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
VIKRAMBHAI CHIMANBHAI DANTANI THRO KAVETHIYA KISHAN CHANDUBHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8636 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: KRUNAL S MEHTA, MR FEHAD A MEMON
For the Respondents: MR. ROHANKUMAR H. RAVAL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order, not merely law and order violations; insufficient evidence leads to quashing of detention.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3 - Preventive detention order - Petitioner detained as ‘dangerous person’ challenged in court - The grounds for detention must show a nexus to public order, not merely law and order - The order of detention quashed as the authority failed to demonstrate that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to public order. (Paras 6-10)
(B) Detention order - The distinction between law and order and public order emphasized - Registration of offences alone does not justify preventive detention under the Act - Activities must affect the public at large, not just specific individuals. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s preventive detention was challenged on the grounds that the activities linked to nine criminal cases do not impact public order and only pertain to law and order issues.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted that the alleged offences did not substantiate a claim of affecting public order, and the detention order was based on insufficient grounds.
Issues: The central issue pertained to whether the petitioner’s alleged activities constituted a threat to public order, justifying preventive detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the detention order invalid due to the lack of sufficient evidence linking the petitioner’s prior alleged offences to public order disturbances, affirming that mere acts disrupting law do not per se justify preventive detention.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the detention order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of detention order (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on public order impact (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's consideration (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. ratio on public order definition (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. decision outcome (Para 10) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The petitioner herein namely Vikrambhai Chimanbhai Dantani came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 12.04.2025 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. Krunal S.
Mehta with Ld. Advocate Mr. F.A. Memon and Mr. Rohankumar H. Raval, 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 Nine criminal cases Registered before (i) Sabaramati Police Station being C.R. No. 11191039240550/2024 dated 03/09/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS and Second (ii) Ranip Police Station being C.R. No. 11191002240503/2024 dated 16/12/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS (iii) Ghatlodiya Police Station being C.R. No. 11191044240347/2024 dated 26/12/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS (iv) Ranip Police Station being C.R. No.11191002240527/2024 dated 29/12/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS (V) Naranpura Police Station being C.R. No. 11191034240226/2024 dated 30/12/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS (vi)
Vadaj Police Station being C.R. No. 11191023240869/2024 dated 30/12/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS (vii) Vejalpur Police Station being C.R. No. 11191028240820/2024 dated 30/12/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS (viii) Vadaj Police Station being C.R. No. 11191023240871/2024 dated 31/12/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS and (ix) Maninagar Police Station being C.R. No. 11191032250003/2025 dated 02/01/2025 for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) & 54 of the BNS, 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.
