Gujarat High Court
Firozbhai Maheboobbhai Katiya / Miyana … vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6164/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6164 of 2025
==========================================================
FIROZBHAI MAHEBOOBBHAI KATIYA / MIYANA THRO MAHEBOOB
OSHMAN KATIYA / MIYANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR IRFAN I KATIYAMIYANA(10266) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The petitioner herein namely Firozbhai Maheboobbhai
Katiya / Miyana came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the District
Magistrate, Morbi, as a “cruel person” as defined under Section
2(bbb) 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. Irfan
Katiyamiyana and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the
respondent State.
4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 04:25:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6164/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
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 Morbi.
6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
made by the respective parties, the issue arises 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 applicant
and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a
reference of three criminal cases registered against the
applicant (i) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5),
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 04:25:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6164/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
54 and 325 of BNSS, 2023 and Sections 5(1)(A)(B), 6(B)(1)(2),
8(2)(4) and 10 of Animal Cruelty Act dated 06.01.2025
registered with Maliya Miyana Police Station and (ii) for the
offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 54 and 325 of BNSS,
2023 and Sections 5(1)(1-A)(B), 6(B)(1), 6(B)(2) and 8(2)(4) of
Animal Cruelty Act and Section 11(1)(1) of Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act dated 10.01.2025 registered with
Halvad Police Station and (iii) for the offence punishable under
Sections 316(5), 54 and 325 of BNSS, 2023 and Sections 5(1)
(A)(B), 6(B)(1)(2), 8(2)(4) and 10 of Animal Cruelty Act and
Section 11(1)(l) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and
Section 119 of G.P. Act dated 14.01.2025 registered with
Maliya Miyana Police Station was made and further it is alleged
that, the activities of the detenue as a “cruel 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 applicant was granted
bail.
8. The term ‘Cruel Person’ defined under Section 2(bbb)
reads as under:
“cruel person” means a person, who either by himself or
as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or
attempts to commit or abets the commission of an
offence punishable under section 8 of the Bombay
Animal Preservation Act, 1954;”
9. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that, there is no material placed before the
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 04:25:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6164/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
authority to establish that the applicant was convicted of an
offence punishable under Section 8 of the Bombay Animal
Preservation Act, 1954 within a period of 3 years from the date
of such conviction who either himself or as a member or leader
of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets
the commission of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954.
Thus, therefore, we are of the firm view that, the activities as
alleged would not fall under the definition of ‘cruel person’.
After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of said 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 thePage 4 of 7
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 04:25:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/6164/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
Court observed as follows:
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- 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,
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 04:25:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6164/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
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.”
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 04:25:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6164/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
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)
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 04:25:46 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link