Gujarat High Court
Jay @ Batlo Sureshbhai Pujari vs State Of Gujarat on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/448/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 448 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2751 of 2021
==========================================================
JAY @ BATLO SURESHBHAI PUJARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIM M SAIYED(5172) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 03/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. We have heard Shri Salim Saiyed, learned counsel
for the appellant and Ms.Shruti Pathak, 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 16.02.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application
No.2751 of 2021, whereby the writ petition challenging the
order of preventive detention was dismissed.
C/LPA/448/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
there are only four cases registered against the appellant. First
being a case under Sections 324, 326, 294(b), 506(2) and 114
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat
Police Act based on an FIR dated 07.08.2018, the second is
about an offence under Sections 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 506(2)
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the
Gujarat Police Act based on an FIR dated 21.06.2020, the third
being a case under Sections 354(A) and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code based on an FIR dated 09.07.2020 and the fourth is
about an offence under Sections 294(b), 427, 506(2) and 114
of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR dated 30.07.2020.
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 four cases
and he is already on bail. It is also submitted that the appellant
is in custody since 17.10.2020. 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
C/LPA/448/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
Patent Appeal No.454 of 2020, squarely covers the case of
the present appellant.
4. On the other hand, Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned
Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the order of
detention is fully justified and the detaining authority after due
satisfaction has passed the said order. It is also submitted by
Ms.Pathak that apart from the four First Information Reports,
there were two other statements recorded in camera and as
such the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from
any infirmity in dismissing the petition. 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,
C/LPA/448/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
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 four FIRs related to an offence of causing
hurt only. By no stretch of imagination can we hold that such
incidents could describe a person as a dangerous person.
6. The other two statements recorded in camera could
be of help to the detaining authority in passing the detention
order where at least prima facie the detenue could be said to
be a dangerous person on account of his known criminal
activities. 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 the law on the point.
7. Ms.Pathak upon instructions has placed before us a
chart according to which total 19 offences are registered
against the appellant. However, a perusal of the detention
order indicates consideration of only four cases referred to
above. As such, the detention order cannot be justified on this
ground that there are 19 offences registered against the
appellant.
8. We are accordingly of the view that the order of
detention cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal
C/LPA/448/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 16.02.2021 passed in Special Civil
Application No.2751 of 2021 is set aside. The detention order
dated 17.10.2020 is quashed. The appellant be set at liberty
forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
