1. Preventive detention order challenged on grounds of acting as a dangerous person under state legislation, following two registered criminal cases. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 34883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Gita Gopi, L. S. Pirzada, JJ
Rehan @Baba Aabadakhan Pathan – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13787 of 2026
Important Points
The court distinguished between 'public order' and 'law and order,' ruling that preventive detention is invalid if the detenu's activities only constitute a law and order problem without affecting the community at large or the even tempo of society.
Subject
Criminal - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985: S.2(c), S.3
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.191(3), S.118(2), S.115(2), S.296(B), S.351(3), S.118(1), S.296, S.54
Gujarat Police Act: S.135
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.191(3), S.118(2), S.115(2), S.296(B), S.351(3), S.118(1), S.296, S.54
Gujarat Police Act: S.135
Headnote
(A) Preventive Detention - Public Order vs. Law and Order - Detention based on criminal cases that only affect individuals and do not disturb the even tempo of life of the community is a matter of law and order, not public order, and thus cannot sustain a detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. (Para 8, 10)
(B) Legal Principles - Distinction between Public Order and Law and Order - Public order is a narrower ambit than law and order; for an act to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large rather than just a few individuals. (Para 9, 9.3)
Issues: Whether the detention order passed under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 is sustainable when the activities of the detenu are prejudicial only to law and order and not to public order.
Result: Petition allowed; detention order quashed.
(B) Legal Principles - Distinction between Public Order and Law and Order - Public order is a narrower ambit than law and order; for an act to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large rather than just a few individuals. (Para 9, 9.3)
Issues: Whether the detention order passed under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 is sustainable when the activities of the detenu are prejudicial only to law and order and not to public order.
Result: Petition allowed; detention order quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manjula R Chauhan
For the Respondents: LB Dabhi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manjula R Chauhan
For the Respondents: LB Dabhi
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends detention lacks nexus to public order, whereas the state maintains that repeated offences necessitate preventive detention for public order maintenance. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The court evaluates the distinction between public order and law and order, finding that the alleged criminal activities fail to disturb the even tempo of community life. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. Preventive detention for public order requires that criminal acts possess the intensity and magnitude to disturb the tranquility of society, distinct from mere individual law and order violations. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
5. The detention order is quashed and set aside, with the immediate release of the petitioner directed. (Para 11 )
6. What is the legal test to distinguish between public order and law and order in preventive detention matters?
Public order requires that the act possesses sufficient magnitude and intensity to disturb the current life and tranquility of the community, whereas law and order concerns individual contraventions of law not affecting the public at large. (Para 9 )
7. Can registration of criminal offences automatically justify detention on the ground of public disorder?
No. The detention authority must reach subjective satisfaction that the reach of the criminal acts impacts the public generally, rather than merely specific individuals, as the nature of the act alone does not determine its potentiality to disrupt public order. (Para 8 , 10 )
ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 11.09.2026 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City, 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 of1985).
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.
3. This Court has heard learned advocates appearing 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 detenue 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 Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the application contended that, the detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected 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 two criminal cases i.e. (i) for the offences under Sections 191(3), 118(2), 115(2), 296(B) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act with Kumbharvada Police Station dated 26.08.2026, (ii) for the offences under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 296 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act with Varasiya Police Station dated 16.08.2026, registered against the petitioner were 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.
8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of two criminal 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.
9. The distinction between "public order" and "law and order" has been carefully defined in a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Others , (1966) 1 SCR 709. In this judgment, His Lordship Hidayatullah, J. by giving various illustrations clearly defined the "public order" and "law and order". Relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:
"....Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of disorder or only some? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powe
