Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
KALPESHBHAI @ KHAPTI KANTIBHAI RATHOD (PAGI) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8291 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR.HIREN M MODI
For the Respondents: MS MONALI BHATT
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Act requires a clear connection to public order; mere local disturbances are insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3 - Preventive detention - Legality of detention order challenged on grounds of lack of connection to public order; the court ruled that mere disturbance of law and order is insufficient for preventive detention under the Act. (Paras 4, 8, 9)
(B) Detention Order - The authority failed to substantiate claims that activities of the petitioner affect public order; acts characterized as local disturbances do not meet criteria for preventive detention as per the Act. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained as a “dangerous person” based on multiple criminal cases, yet the court found insufficient evidence connecting these activities to a threat to public order.
Findings of Court:
The detention order was quashed, with directions for immediate release if there are no pending cases against the petitioner.
Issues: The key issue was whether the respondent's detention order under the Act was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the crimes did not present a threat to public order, thus the preventive detention was unwarranted under the Act.
Result: The petition was allowed, quashing the detention order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and detention order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding public order versus law and order. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. consideration of the legal standards for preventive detention. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court's reasoning on insufficient grounds for detention. (Para 9) |
| 5. outcome of the petition and direction for release. (Para 10) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The petitioner herein namely Kalpeshbhai @ Khapti Kantibhai Rathod (Pagi) came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 16.05.2025 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 Mr.Hiren Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP 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 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 applicant and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of eight criminal cases i.e. (I) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2) and 54 of the BNS, (II) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2) and 54 of the BNS, (III) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 05(B) and 54 of the BNS, (IV) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2) and 54 of the BNS, (V) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2) and 54 of the BNS, (VI) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 79 and 114 of IPC, (VII) for the offences punishable under Section 3 03(2) of the BNS, (VIII) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2) and 54 of the BNS, registered against the applicant under the Indian Penal Code 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 eight 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 V
