##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3757/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

0.13171179756961648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3757 of 2026

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

NITESH S/O. VIJAY KHAWANI THRO SUNITA VIJAY KHAWANI Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR D V SHAH(10719) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR ROHAN H. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 27/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. The petitioner herein namely Nitesh S/o. Vijay Khawani came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, as a “Cyber Offender” as defined under Section 2(ba) 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. D. V. Shah and Mr. Rohan H. Raval, learned AGP 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

Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 28 19:43:05 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3757/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

0.13171179756961648

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 City.

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 one criminal case registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS and 66(D) of

Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 28 19:43:05 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3757/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

0.13171179756961648

Information Technology Act dated 14.11.2025 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Surat City was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “cyber offender” 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 ‘Cyber Offender’ defined under Section 2(ba)

reads as under:

"cyber offender” means a person who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offence punishable under Chapter XI of the

Information