Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 3943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
SALMANKHAN @ SALLU KAIYYUMKHAN AYUBKHAN PATHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8637 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: KRUNAL S MEHTA, MR FEHAD A MEMON
For the Respondents: MR. ROHANKUMAR H. RAVAL
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear nexus to public order, not merely law and order disturbances.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3(4) - Preventive detention of petitioner as a dangerous person challenged - Detention order quashed for lack of nexus to public order as mere disturbance of law and order nicht sufficing for preventive detention under the Act. (Paras 8, 10)
(B) Habeas Corpus - The court must ensure that the detention remains consistent with the laws governing preventive detention, particularly when public order is concerned (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained as a dangerous person under the Act of 1985, based on nine criminal cases. These allegations were contested by the petitioner as not affecting public order but merely law and order issues.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the detaining authority failed to demonstrate that the alleged activities were prejudicial to public order.
Issues: Whether the grounds of detention adequately related to the maintenance of public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere disturbances impacting law and order do not satisfy the threshold for preventive detention under the Act.
Result: Petition allowed, and the detention order was quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detention based on law and order versus public order. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's reasoning on the insufficiency of the grounds for detention. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. outcome of the petition challenging the detention order. (Para 10) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The petitioner herein namely Salmankhan @ Sallu Kaiyyumkhan Ayubkhan Pathan 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
