Gaurav Arunbhai Jethva Thro Jyotiben ... vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Gaurav Arunbhai Jethva Thro Jyotiben ... vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/SCR.A/14581/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                  R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 14581 of 2025

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
                      and
                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                      ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting               Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                        GAURAV ARUNBHAI JETHVA THRO JYOTIBEN GAURAVBHAI JETHVA
                                                 Versus
                                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR JITENDRA D PATEL(11288) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MS. JYOTI BHATT ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
                      No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                                                     Date : 24/11/2025

                                                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)

1. The present petition is filed by Gaurav Arunbhai Jethva through his Wife namely Jyotiben Gauravbhai Jethva came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot as a Bootlegger under Section 2(b) 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 detenue has challenged the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:15:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/14581/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent-State Authorities.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was no material available with the detention authority to indicate as to how the public health or public order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner. Thus, in absence of any such material on record, the order of detention ought not have been passed. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and prima facie the order is passed mechanically.

4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order was execution upon the detenue and presently he is detained in the Palara Jail, Bhuj.

5. On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present petition contended that the detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected at the society at large. Hence, 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 Rajkot and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.

6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the core 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 or not?

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/14581/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined

7. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the concerned authority. It appears that the order impugned was executed upon the detenue and presently he is in Palara Jail, Bhuj. In the grounds of detention, reference of one criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 116-B, 98(2), 81, 83 and 86 of the Prohibition Act, registered at Gondal Taluka Police Station, Rajkot against the detenue on 10.08.2025 is made out.

7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of the detenue as a "bootlegger" affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985. Undisputedly, in the aforesaid alleged offences, the detenue was granted regular bail by the concerned court.

8. Considering the impugned order, it appears that the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985 is referred by the concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to be reproduced. The same reads as under:

"2(b) "bootlegger" means a person who distills, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and orders made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being in force or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any receptacle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the things described above by or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing;"

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/14581/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined

9. After consideration of the available material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of one prohibition case, 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 considered opinion, the said offences do not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. In this regard, we would like to refer 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 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 Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:15:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/14581/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined 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, 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 aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:15:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/14581/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined opinion that, the material available 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 17.10.2025 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.

(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J) (D. M. VYAS, J) YASH ARORA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:15:22 IST 2025