Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7757
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
JAHANGIR ISMAILBHAI MANSURI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10568 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.H. Shaikh
For the Respondents: L.B. Dabhi, APP
Preventive detention requires a clear connection between the detained individual's actions and a threat to public order, not merely to law and order.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 2(c) and Section 3 - Preventive detention - Legality and validity of detention order challenged - Court found the grounds of detention insufficient for asserting that the actions of the petitioner are prejudicial to public order. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Detention process - Necessity of establishing a direct threat to public order - Mere law and order issues insufficient for preventive detention, emphasizing that public disorder must affect the community at large. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained as a 'dangerous person' under the Act following allegations of various criminal activities. However, the court observed these had not impacted public order.
Findings of Court:
The detention order was quashed due to lack of substantial evidence linking the petitioner’s actions to a threat against public order.
Issues: Whether the detention order met the legal standards for affecting public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere criminality does not suffice for preventive detention. The activities must demonstrate an impact on public order rather than just law and order issues. (Paras 8 and 9)
Result: Petition allowed and the detention order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for detention questioned. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's observation on necessity for public order threat. (Para 6) |
| 4. ratio on distinction between public order and law and order. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final ruling to quash detention. (Para 10) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The petitioner herein namely Jahangir Ismailbhai Mansuri came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 17.07.2025 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.M.H. Shaikh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.B. Dabhi 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), 54 of the BNS, (II) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2), 317(2) of the BNS, (III) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2), 317(4) of the BNS, (III) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2) and 317(4) of the BNS, (IV) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2), 317(2) of the BNS, (V) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2), 317(2) of the BNS, (VI) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2), 317(2) of the BNS, (VII) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2), 317(2) of the BNS and (VIII) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 03(2), 317(2) 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
