1. A detention order classified the subject as a bootlegger under the Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, which was challenged through a petition for legality and validity. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 34882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Gita Gopi, L. S. Pirzada, JJ
Mukeshkumar Pannalal Nathuji Kalal – Appellant
Versus
Collector and District Magistrate Office – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13753 of 2026
Important Points
Preventive detention requires a clear distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'; mere criminal activities, such as bootlegging, without evidence of affecting the community at large or creating public panic do not justify detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act.
Subject
Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985: S.2(b), S.3
Prohibition Act: S.65(a)(e), S.116(b), S.81, S.83, S.98(2)
BNS: S.336(2)(3), S.340(2), S.111(3)(4)
Indian Penal Code: S.465, S.468, S.471, S.120(B)
Prohibition Act: S.65(a)(e), S.116(b), S.81, S.83, S.98(2)
BNS: S.336(2)(3), S.340(2), S.111(3)(4)
Indian Penal Code: S.465, S.468, S.471, S.120(B)
Headnote
(A) Preventive Detention - Public Order vs. Law and Order - Mere registration of criminal cases under the Prohibition Act without evidence of impact on the community at large constitutes a disturbance of law and order, not public order, rendering the detention order invalid. (Para 9, 10)
(B) Subjective Satisfaction - Detaining Authority - The subjective satisfaction of the authority must be based on material showing that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined under the Act; mere status as a bootlegger is insufficient. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the order of detention passed by the detaining authority in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?
(B) Subjective Satisfaction - Detaining Authority - The subjective satisfaction of the authority must be based on material showing that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined under the Act; mere status as a bootlegger is insufficient. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the order of detention passed by the detaining authority in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhargav K Mehta
For the Respondents: LB Dabhi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhargav K Mehta
For the Respondents: LB Dabhi
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner contended that activities categorized as local law and order issues lack constitutional nexus to public order, while the State argued the subject is a habitual offender. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The court found that registration of prohibition offences failing to establish a nexus with public disorder cannot justify a preventive detention order. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Preventive detention for a bootlegger requires evidence that, beyond mere law and order infractions, their activities specifically create panic or insecurity, thereby prejudicing public order. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned detention order, and directed the immediate release of the detenu. (Para 11 )
6. Can registration of prohibition offences automatically justify preventive detention under the Act of 1985?
No. Mere reference to prohibition-related cases does not satisfy the requirement for an order under the Act. The detaining authority must prove that the individual's activity specifically affects public order, rather than just law and order, by showing it causes panic, terror, or significant public insecurity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
7. What is the legal distinction between law and order and public order in the context of preventive detention?
Law and order relates to everyday infractions, whereas public order involves deep, sustained disruption that affects the life and security of the community. Only activities that escalate to the latter category—creating public insecurity or panic—warrant preventive detention. (Para 5 , 9 )
ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 14.09.2026 passed by the respondent authority as a “bootlegger” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter 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 the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate for the detenu submits criminal cases have been registered against the detenu under the Prohibition Act and has been condemned as a bootlegger. Learned advocate for the detenu has submitted that without any evidence, the case has been registered against the detenu and there is no case of any public disorder. Learned advocate for the detenu has relied on the judgments in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (City) reported in AIR 1989 SC 491 and in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal , reported in (1969) 1 SCC 10.
5. Learned advocate for the detenu submitted 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 of 1985 and therefore, where the offences alleged to have been committed by the detenu 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, then the detention order becomes invalid.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposing the application contended that the detenu is a habitual offender and his activities affects the society at large. In such set of circumstances, the detaining authority, considering the antecedents and past activities of the detenu, has passed the impugned order with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Gandhinagar.
7. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, the issue arises for consideration as to whether the order of detention passed by the detaining authority in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?
8. The order impugned was executed upon the detenu. In the grounds of detention, a reference of criminal cases i.e.
(i) for the offence under Sections 65(a)(e), 116(b), 81, 83 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act and Sections 336(2)(3), 340(2) and 111(3)(4) of BNS with Rakhial Police Station and (ii) Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 98(2) and 116(b) of the Prohibition Act and Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code with Rakhial Police Station were made and further it is alleged that the activities of the detenu as a “bootlegger” affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of ‘public order’ as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.
9. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of the said prohibition cases, the authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra), wherein the detention order was made on the basis of the registration of the two prohibition offences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring the case of Pushkar Mukh
