##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3860/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026

0.31183589242315246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3860 of 2026

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

SUNILBHAI SHANTUBHAI BHURIYA THRO SHANTU JOKHA BHURIYA

Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR HEMANT B RAVAL(3491) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 30/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

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

1. The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 27/02/2026 passed by the respondent authority, 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 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 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

Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 05 07:52:01 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3860/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026

0.31183589242315246

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.

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 three criminal cases as mentioned in the impugned detention order and 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.

Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 05 07:52:01 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/3860/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026

0.31183589242315246

8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of aforesaid 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 public order. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, wherein, the dete