Gujarat High Court
Shaktibhai N Kalubhai Dabhi Thro … vs State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9841/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9841 of 2025
==========================================================
SHAKTIBHAI N KALUBHAI DABHI THRO JAGDISH BALVANTBHAI BARAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ALPA J DAVE(3924) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The petitioner herein namely Shaktibhai N Kalubhai
Dabhi came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the District
Magistrate, Bhavnagar, 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.
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:57:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9841/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. A.J. Dave
and Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja 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
in the area of Bhavnagar.
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:57:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9841/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
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
(I) for offences under section 384,144 of IPC and Section
40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act dated
02.03.2023 with Bortalav Police Station, (ii) for offences
under section 323,504,506-2,114 of the IPC and 135 of
the GP Act, dated 16.05.2023 with Bortalav Police
Station, (iii) for offences under section 305-a,331-3,324-
4,352,3512-2 of the BNS and Section 135 of the GP Act,
dated 23.04.2025 with Bortalav Police Station, and (iv)
for the offences under Sections 352,351-4,324-4 of the
BNS dated 24.04.2025 with Bortalav 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.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:57:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9841/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of four 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. 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:
10. “Does the expression `public order’ take in
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:57:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/9841/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
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.”
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:57:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9841/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
18. In the instant case, the detaining authority, in our
opinion, has failed to substantiate that the alleged
anti- 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,
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:57:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9841/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
be upheld.”
9. For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered
opinion that, the material on record are not sufficient
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 07.07.2025 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 7 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:57:54 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link