Gujarat High Court
Rahul @ Hukko Punambhai Patni vs State Of Gujarat on 5 April, 2021
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/LPA/372/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 372 of 2021
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10978 of 2020
===============================================================
RAHUL @ HUKKO PUNAMBHAI PATNI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR RAZIN ZEENA FOR MR.O I PATHAN(7684) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
===============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 05/04/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. We have heard Razin Zeena, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr.Dharmesh Devnani, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the State
respondents.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been
preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act
assailing the correctness of the judgment and order
dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Special Civil Application No.10978 of 2020,
whereby the writ petition challenging the order of
preventive detention was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
C/LPA/372/2021 ORDER
there are only two cases registered against the
appellant. First being C.R.No.I11191004200167 of
2020 dated 17.03.2020 registered with Amraiwadi
Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
punishable under Sections 395, 394 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat
Police Act and another being C.R.No.I11191035200312
of 2020 dated 17.03.2020 registered with Naroda
Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
punishable under Sections 397, 395, 392 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the
Gujarat Police Act. Apart from it there is no other
material against the appellant. The invoking of
jurisdiction under the preventive detention law is
totally unjustified as there was neither any
disturbance of public order nor the appellant can be
said to be a dangerous person. It is also submitted
by the learned counsel that the appellant had been
falsely implicated in the said two cases. It is also
submitted that the appellant is in custody since
01.08.2020. It is next submitted that a recent
Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
31.08.2020 passed in the case of Vijay Alias Ballu
Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Patni vs. State of Gujarat,
being Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2020, squarely
covers the case of the present appellant.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Devnani, learned
Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the order
of detention is fully justified and the detaining
authority after due satisfaction has passed the said
C/LPA/372/2021 ORDER
order. It is also submitted by Mr.Devnani that the
learned Single Judge after dealing with the entire
material on record declined to interfere with the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in
holding that the appellant was a dangerous person.
This Court as such may not interfere with the order
of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal.
5. In the judgment dated 31.08.2020 in the case of
Vijay alias Ballu (supra), the issue relating to
public order and law and order problem had been dealt
with in detail. Law of preventive detention has to
be construed not as in an ordinary criminal
proceedings of detaining or arresting a person who is
said to have committed crime where the procedure is
provided and the remedy is available. However, the
law of preventive detention is to be strictly
followed as per the statute and the settled law on
the point. In the present case, we find that the
First Information Report related to an offence of
causing hurt while committing robbery and dacoity in
which the FIR was against an unknown person. In the
other case, the offence came to be registered for
attempt to cause death or grievous hurt while
committing robbery or dacoity. By no stretch of
imagination can we hold that such two incidents could
describe a person as a dangerous person.
6. The said view has been discussed and ratio laid
down in the judgment of this Court in the case of
Vijay alias Ballu (supra) after considering in detail
C/LPA/372/2021 ORDER
the law on the point.
7. We are accordingly of the view that the order of
detention cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the
appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The
detention order is quashed. The appellant be set at
liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
PALAK
