##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3077/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.8770660156810991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3077 of 2026

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

ANILBHAI PRAVINBHAI JANI THRO.PARTH S/O. PRAVINBHAI PATEL Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.ARVINDKUMAR H SHARMA(17620) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MS MEGHNA CHITALIYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 23/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

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

1. The petitioner detenue herein came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the respondent – authority 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 detenue has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3. This Court has heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent-State

Authorities.

Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 01:07:06 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3077/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.8770660156810991

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued 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 submitted by 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. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order was executed upon the petitioner

and presently he is detained in the Special Jail at Bhuj.

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

Surat and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.

6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective

Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 01:07:06 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3077/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.8770660156810991

parties, the core 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 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 detained in Special Jail, Bhuj. In the grounds of detention, reference of one criminal case for the offences punishable under the provisions of BNS and under Sections 66(d) of the IT Act

registered with Udhna Police Station against the detenue.

7.1. In the impugned order, 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 the provisions of the the Act of 1985.

8. Considering the impugned order, it appears that the provisions of Section 2(ba) of the Act of 1985 is referred by the concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to

be reproduced. The same