Gujarat High Court
Ketan @ Kishan @ Targalo Jayantibhai ... vs Commissioner Of Police on 11 April, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4681 of 2025
==========================================================
KETAN @ KISHAN @ TARGALO JAYANTIBHAI NARANBHAI BAROT THRO
PUSHPABEN W/O. JAYANTIBHAI BAROT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BH SOLANKI(5353) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 11/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT)
1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City dated 06.03.2025, whereby the petitioner is detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. 2.1 At the outset, it is required to be kept in mind the object of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, which is as under :
" An Act to provide for preventive detention of boot-leggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders, immoral traffic offenders, property grabbers, cyber offenders, money lending offenders and Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined sexual offenders for preventing their anti-social and dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."
2.2 At this stage, Rule 178 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 is also required to be kept in mind, which is as under :
" 178. Summary dismissal or Rule Nisi - The Court may either summarily dismiss the petition or order a rule nisi to be issued against the respondent against whom it is sought, as it thinks fit. Any rule so granted shall not be made returnable within less than 15 days after the service thereof on the respondent, unless otherwise directed by the Court."
2.3 It is relevant to note that in the present matter, this Court has issued 'Rule' vide order dated 04.04.2025 and made it returnable today i.e. on 11.04.2025, which is, prima facie, not complying the requirement of the Rule noted above. Therefore, this aspect is required to be kept in mind while considering the other matters for admission, henceforth. 2.4 Further, from the record, it is also relevant to note that the detaining authority has considered three FIRs Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined which are registered against the present petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023; and that in the year 2016, 2017, twice in 2020, 2021 and 2023, the authority has passed the order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act against the present petitioner and the petitioner has not made any representation before the concerned authority regarding the same. However, it recent past, this Court has, without asking any response from the concerned authority / State to file affidavit in support of the impugned order, passed many orders on the returnable date without inviting much debate on the impugned orders and on the basis of earlier judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the orders / judgments passed by this Court. Therefore, this Court has no option at this stage but to consider this petition accordingly. The Registry shall take note of this observation.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, mere filing of FIR against the petitioner itself is no ground, for the detaining authority, to arrive at the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is further submitted that, no legally sustainable satisfaction is recorded by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order and therefore the impugned order be quashed and set aside. Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:52:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State Authorities has supported the detention order passed by the detaining authority and has submitted that the impugned order is based on sufficient material and the detaining authority has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.
5.1 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 ?
5.2 After careful consideration of the material on record, we find that the detaining authority has exercised the powers, treating the petitioner as a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The FIR/s, being (i) C.R. No.11191029240276 of 2024 dated 24.09.2024 registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 296(B) and 54 of the BNS and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act with the Rakhiyal Police Station (ii) C.R. No.11191029240310 of 2024 dated 11.11.2024 registered under Sections 309(4), 115(2) and 54 of Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined the BNS and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act with the Rakhiyal Police Station and (iii) C.R. No.11191004240700 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024 registered under Sections 189(2), 191(1), 333, 351(3) and 324(4) of the BNS and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act with the Rakhiyal Police Station, which are the basis to treat the petitioner as such a person is referred to in the impugned order and further details in that regard are on record. Said FIR/s and other material which is on record is considered by this Court. On conjoint consideration thereof it transpires that, the detaining authority fell in error in treating the activities of the petitioner as prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The distinction between 'the law and order' and 'the public order' needs to be kept in mind, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 10, wherein it is observed that mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under preventive detention Act. 5.3 Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that on the basis of prohibition case/s, 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 offence/s do not have any bearing on Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined 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 prohibition offence/s. The impugned order, on facts, fails on this test. The impugned order therefore needs to be quashed and set aside. 5.4 It is noted that, in the grounds of the detention, the detaining authority has recorded to the effect that, according to him, the activities of the petitioner create a sense of alarm and feeling of insecurity in the minds of public at large, however on weighing this vis-a-vis the material on record, this Court finds that, the citation of such words is more in the nature of rituals rather than with any significance to the alleged activities of the petitioner. 5.5 In totality, we find that, the impugned order is unsustainable and needs to be quashed and set aside.
6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City dated 06.03.2025, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner / detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute in above Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:52:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined terms.
Direct service is permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:52:21 IST 2025