##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3625/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026

0.1982780225490519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3625 of 2026

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

MOHIT S/O BAKSHARAM GURUBAKSHANI THROUGH GANESH HARESHKUMAR BITARAI

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR VIRAL J VYAS(6233) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MAITHILI MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 25/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 04.03.2026 passed by the respondent – authority as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) 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 for the petitioner and 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

Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Mar 29 07:59:23 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3625/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026

0.1982780225490519

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 of 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.

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? Page 2 of 7

Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Mar 29 07:59:23 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3625/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026

0.1982780225490519

7. The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of one criminal cases registered against the petitioner under the Prohibition Law was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “bootlegger” 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 said offences, the petitioner was

granted bail.

8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of one prohibition 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 two 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 in the case of Piyush