Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 16243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ilesh J. Vora, R. T. Vachhani, JJ
VIJAYBHAI @KADAR HIMATBHAI MAKWANA THRO JAGRUTIBEN VIJAYBHAI MAKWANAV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6073 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Gajendra P Baghel
For the Respondents: Mr Ronak B Raval
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a threat to 'public order' affecting the community at large, rather than a mere 'law and order' issue involving individual disputes or crimes.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 17/04/2026 issued under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, which designated the petitioner as a "dangerous person". The detention was based on four criminal cases, although the petitioner had been granted bail in all of them. The court found that the detaining authority failed to establish that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The central issue was whether the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 was sustainable in law. The court reasoned that a clear distinction exists between "law and order" and "public order", noting that "every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder" and that for an act to affect public order, it "must affect the community or the public at large". The order impugned dated 17/04/2026 passed by the respondent authority is hereby quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the legality of a preventive detention order based on the 'dangerous person' classification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. contention regarding the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' in preventive detention. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal requirement that preventive detention must be based on activities affecting the community at large, not just individual crimes. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. quashing of detention order when subjective satisfaction lacks a legal basis in public order maintenance. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 17/04/2026 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 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 four 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.
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 detention order was made on the basis of the registration of the two prohibition offences. The Apex Court after referring the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal , 1969 (1) SCC 10 held and observed that mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under preventive detention Act. Paras-17 & 18 are relevant to refer, which read thus:
“17. In this connection,
