IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3054 of 2026 ==========================================================

ASIF @ BABU S/O. HAIDAR @ KALU SAIYAD THRO. ASIF RAJABBHAI MANSURI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS JAYSHREE C BHATT(170) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 18/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

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

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

1. The present petition is directed against the order of detention dated 06.02.2026 (actual date of detention 09.02.2026) passed by the respondent – detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby the respondent - detaining authority has detained the petitioner - detenue as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. 2. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner – detenue and learned APP appearing for the respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner - detenue submits that the impugned order of detention is required to be quashed and set-aside since the detaining authority has passed the order of detention solely on the ground of registration of 1 FIR, (i) for the offences under Sections 8(C), 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act with Athwalines Police Station, and that by itself cannot bring the case of the petitioner - detenue within the purview of definition under Section 2(g) of the Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner – detenue further submitted that the illegal activities alleged to have been carried out or likely to be carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most it can be said to be a breach of law and order. Further, except the statements of the witnesses and the registration of the above FIRs, no other relevant and cogent material is on record which would show that the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner - detenue fall under the category of breach of public order. Learned advocate further submitted that it is not possible to hold, on the basis of the facts of the present case, that the activities of the petitioner - detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected and disturbed the social fabric of the society, eventually which would become threat to the very existence of the normal and routine life of the people at large or that on the basis of the registration of criminal cases, the petitioner - detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for the whole system to exist, as a system governed by rule of law, by disturbing the public order. It is also submitted that the detaining authority has also not applied its mind to the fact that the petitioner – detenue is released on bail in all the offences.

4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has supported the detention order passed by the detaining authority and has submitted that sufficient materials and evidences were found during the course of investigation and the same were even supplied to the petitioner – detenue, which indicate that the detenue is in the habit of indulging into activities as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and the same deserves to be upheld by this Court.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the documents and materials available on record, prima facie, it is found that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the o