Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 6927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
IMAN@IMAM@MANJRO@BHURIYO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9041 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. KISHAN H DAIYA
For the Respondents: MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP
Preventive detention requires evidence that actions adversely affect public order, not just law and order.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(bbb), Section 3(4) - Preventive detention - The petitioner was detained as a 'cruel person' based on allegations of habitual criminal activity - The court held the grounds for detention lacked sufficient evidence to establish the accused's actions adversely affected public order. (Paras 1, 4, 9, 10)
(B) Law and Order vs. Public Order - Distinction clarified - Mere disturbances of law and order do not justify preventive detention under the Act unless they affect public order. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his preventive detention order as a 'cruel person', asserting the grounds cited did not pertain to public order.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the detention lacked a factual basis to justify a finding of public order disruption. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not substantiated.
Issues: Whether the alleged activities justified preventive detention under the relevant Act and affected public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that habitual actions of the petitioner did not meet the threshold needed to merit preventive detention concerning public order.
Result: The order of detention was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be released immediately.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preventive detention is challenged. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from both sides on public order. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. basis for preventive detention under the relevant act and its legal implications. (Para 4) |
| 4. court assesses the distinction between law and order. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. allegations do not support legal definition of 'cruel person.' (Para 7 , 9) |
| 6. court quashes detention based on insufficient evidence. (Para 10) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The petitioner herein namely Iman @ Imam @ Manjro @ Bhuriyo S/o. Hirabhai @ Hirahaji Shaikh (Kureshi) came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City as a “cruel person” as defined under Section 2 (bbb) 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.Kishan Daiya for the petitioner, and Mr.Bhargav Pandya, 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 Surat.
6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, the issue arises 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 three criminal cases registered against the applicant (I) for the offences punishable under Sections 2 95(A), 144, 429, 188 and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 5(1), 5(1)(1-A), 6(B), 1, 2, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011 and Section 11 (1)(F) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and (II) for the offences punishable under Sections 429, 295(A), 114 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 5(1)(A), 6(A), 8(1)(2)(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011 and Section 6(A)(B) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2017 and (III) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 25 and 54 of the BNS and Sections 5(1)(A), 6(A), 8(1)(2)(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011 and Section 6(B) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2017, was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “cruel 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. The term ‘Cruel Person’ defined under Section 2 (bbb)
reads as under:
"cruel person" means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of an offence punishable under section 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 ;"
