IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3470 of 2026 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (TEMPORARY BAIL) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3470 of 2026 ==========================================================

VINUBHAI KURJIBHAI JADVANI THRO KISHORBHAI KURJIBHAI JADVANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 10/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

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

1. The petitioner herein namely Vinubhai Kurjibhai Jadvani came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 07.03.2026 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. B. M. Mangukiya and Mr. Jay Mehta, 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 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 two criminal cases registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 316(5), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS and 66(D) of Information Technology Act dated 19.08.2025 registered with Udhana Police Station, Surat, 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 Technology Act, 2000;

9. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that, there is no material placed before the authority to establish that the applicant was convicted of offences under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of The Information Technology Act who commits or attempts to co