Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 9990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
BHAVESHBHAI @ JOKHAM BHARATBHAI CHUDASAMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 11693 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K T BELADIYA
For the Respondents: MR L B DABHI
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of activities affecting public order, not merely law and order, as established in prior case law.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, the petitioner was detained as a 'dangerous person' per Section 2(c). Facts of the Case: The petitioner challenged the legality of the detention order dated 13.08.2025, arguing that his activities did not affect public order.
Findings of Court:
The number of past criminal cases was deemed insufficient to justify detention under the Act.
Issues: The court framed whether the detention order was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between law and order versus public order, referencing prior case law, concluding that the detaining authority failed to prove the alleged activities affected public order.
Result: The petition was allowed, quashing the detention order dated 13.08.2025 and directing the petitioner's release.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging detention order's legality. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding nature of charges. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's evaluation of detention and public order. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final ruling on detention order. (Para 10) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The petitioner herein namely Bhaveshbhai @ Jokham Bharatbhai Chudasama came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Amreli, 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. K T Beladiya and Mr. L B Dabhi, 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 Amreli.
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 21 criminal cases
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.
Sr No.
Police Station
Date
Offence
1
Savarkundla Town
14.01.2025
303(2) of BNS
2
Savarkundla Town
24.02.2025
303(2) of BNS
3
Savarkundla Town
.20.04.2025
303(2) of BNS
4
Savarkundla Town
22.04.2025
379 of IPC
5
Savarkundla Town
25.04.2025
303(2) of BNS
6
Savarkundla Rural
25.02.2025
303(2) of BNS
7
Mahuva
20.05.2024
379 of IPC
8
Mahuva
15.07.2024
303(2) of BNS
9
Mahuva
16.07.2024
303(2) of BNS
10
Mahuva
17.07.2024
303(2) of BNS
11
Mahuva
23.12.2024
303(2) of BNS
12
Mahuva
25.12.2024
303(2) of BNS
13
Mahuva
23.01.2025
303(2) of BNS
14
Mahuva Gramya
25.02.2025
303(2) of BNS
15
Mahuva Gramya
25.04.2025
303(2) of BNS
16
Mahuva Gramya
27.04.2025
303(2) of BNS
17
Mahuva Gramya
27.04.2025
303(2) of BNS
18
Bagdana
19.03.2025
303(2) of BNS
19
Bagdana
27.04.2025
303(2) of BNS
20
Alang
25.04.2025
303(2) of BNS
21
Talaja
25.04.2025
303(2) of BNS
8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of 21 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 publi
