Gujarat High Court
Iman@Imam@Manjro@Bhuriyos/Ohirabhai … vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9041/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9041 of 2025
==========================================================
IMAN@IMAM@MANJRO@BHURIYOs/oHIRABHAI @ HIRAHAJI
SHAIKH(KURESHI)thro ASLAM HIRALAL S/O SHAIKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The petitioner herein namely Iman @ Imam @ Manjro @
Bhuriyo S/o. Hirabhai @ Hirahaji Shaikh (Kureshi) came to be
preventively detained vide the detention order dated
24.06.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City 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.Kishan Daiya for
the petitioner, and Mr.Bhargav Pandya, learned APP for the
respondent State.
4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:17:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9041/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
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 Surat.
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 offences punishable under Sections 295(A),
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:17:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9041/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
144, 429, 188 and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 5(1), 5(1)(1-A),
6(B), 1, 2, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of the Gujarat Animal
Preservation Act, 2011 and Section 11(1)(F) of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animal Act and (II) for the offences punishable
under Sections 429, 295(A), 114 and 34 of the IPC and
Sections 5(1)(A), 6(A), 8(1)(2)(4) of the Gujarat Animal
Preservation Act, 2011 and Section 6(A)(B) of the Gujarat
Animal Preservation Act, 2017 and (III) for the offences
punishable under Sections 325 and 54 of the BNS and Sections
5(1)(A), 6(A), 8(1)(2)(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act,
2011 and Section 6(B) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act,
2017, 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 authority to establish that the applicant was convicted
of an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Bombay
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:17:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9041/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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 the CourtPage 4 of 7
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:17:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/9041/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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 RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:17:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9041/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
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 24.06.2025 passed by the respondent
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:17:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9041/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
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)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
Rakesh
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:17:57 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link