Gujarat High Court
Parimalbhai Pareshbhai Patel (Dodiya … vs State Of Gujarat on 9 June, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6356/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6356 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PARIMALBHAI PARESHBHAI PATEL (DODIYA PATEL) THROUGH
ROSHANKUMAR PARESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVIK R SAMANI(8339) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 09/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The petitioner herein namely Parimalbhai Pareshbhai
Patel (Dodiya Patel) came to be preventively detained
vide the detention order dated 21.04.2025 passed by
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jun 09 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 09 22:06:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6356/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
the District Magistrate, Surat, 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 Mr. Bhavik R.
Samani and Mr. Jay Mehta, 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
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jun 09 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 09 22:06:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6356/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
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.
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?
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jun 09 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 09 22:06:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6356/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
7. The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner
and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention,
a reference of three criminal cases i.e. (i) for the
offence under Sections 121(1), 115(2), 281, 132, 221,
351(3), 352 of BNS and Section 177, 184 of MV Act
dated 29.11.2024 with Mahuva Police Station and (ii)
for the offence under Sections 85 of Prohibition Act
dated 29.11.2024 with Mahuva Police Station, and (iii)
for the offence under Section 121(1), 115(2), 281,
132, 221, 351(3), 352 of BNS dated 21.01.2025 with
Mahuva Police Station 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 three criminal
cases, the authority has wrongly arrived at the
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jun 09 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 09 22:06:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6356/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
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, we may refer to a decision of this
Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal,
where the distinction between `law and order’ and
`public order’ has been clearly laid down. Ramaswami, J.
speaking for the Court observed as follows:
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jun 09 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 09 22:06:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6356/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
10. “Does the expression `public order’ take in
every kind of infraction of order or only some
categories thereof? It is manifest that every act of
assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to
public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight
and assault each other inside a house or in a street,
it may be said that there is disorder but not public
disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the
powers vested in the executive authorities under
the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the
culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they
were disturbing public order. The contravention of
any law always affects order but before it can be
said to affect public order, it must affect the
community or the public at large. In this connection
we must draw a line of demarcation between
serious and aggravated forms of disorder which
directly affect the community or injure the public
interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace
of a purely local significance which primarily injure
specific individuals and only in a secondary sense
public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order
leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient
for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a
disturbance which will affect public order comes
within the scope of the Act.”
18. In the instant case, the detaining authority, in our
opinion, has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti-
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jun 09 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 09 22:06:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6356/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
social activities of the petitioner adversely affect or are
likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public
order. It is true some incidents of beating by the
petitioner had taken place, as alleged by the witnesses.
But, such incidents, in our view, do not have any bearing
on the maintenance of public order. The petitioner may
be punished for the alleged offences committed by him
but, surely, the acts constituting the offences cannot be
said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the
community. It may be that the petitioner is a bootlegger
within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act, but merely
because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively
detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid
down in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act, his
activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to
affect adversely the maintenance of public order We
have carefully considered the offences alleged against
the petitioner in the order of detention and also the
allegations made by the witnesses and, in our opinion,
these offences or the allegations cannot be said to have
created any feeling of insecurity or panic or terror
among the members of the public of the area in question
giving rise to the question of maintenance of public
order. The order of detention cannot, therefore, be
upheld.”
9. For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered
opinion that, the material on record are not sufficient
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jun 09 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 09 22:06:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6356/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
for holding that the alleged activities of the detenue
have either affected adversely or likely to affect
adversely the maintenance of public order and
therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid
and in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned dated 21.04.2025 (Actual date of Detention
23.04.2025) passed by the respondent authority is
hereby quashed. We direct the detenue to be set at
liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other
case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct
service permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jun 09 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 09 22:06:09 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link