IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2123 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

SANJAYBHAI @CENTER DHIRUBHAI RATHOD THRO PINTUBEN SANJAYBHAI RATHOD Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MAUNISH T PATHAK(5892) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. NISARG D SHAH(7299) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 SUNIL H PRAJAPATI(8350) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Date : 02/03/2026

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)

[1] The present petition is filed by Sanjaybhai @Center Dhirubhai Rathod Through his wife Pintuben Sanjaybhai Rathod (hereinafter referred to as “the detenue”) came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Director General of Police, C.I.D Crime and Railways, Gandhinagar, as a Illicit Traffic as defined under Section 2(e)

of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988).

[2] By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

[3] Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

[4] Learned advocate for the petitioner has averred in his application that there was no material available with the detention authority to indicate as to how the public health or public order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner. Thus, in absence of any such material on record, the order of detention ought not have been passed. It is further stated in the application by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and prima facie the order is passed mechanically.

[4.1] It was also apprised from the application that the impugned order was execution upon the detenue and presently he is detained in the Central Jail, Surat [5] On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present petition contended that the detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected at the society at large. Hence, 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 and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.

[6] Having considered the facts as well as the grounds raised in the application and submissions made by the learned APP appearing for the authorities, the core 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 or not?

[7] We have carefully gone through the order passed by the concerned authority. It appears that the order impugned was executed upon the detenue and presently he is in Central Jail, Surat. In the grounds of detention, reference of one criminal cases for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 dated 15.05.2025 with Bagodara Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural against the detenue was made out.

[7.1] In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of the detenue as a “Illicit Traffic” affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1988.

[8] Considering the impugned order, it appears that the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1988 is referred by the concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to be reproduced. The same reads a