Kishore @ Ravi @ Lalo Rajeshbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 11222 Guj

      C/LPA/606/2021                           ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 606 of 2021
           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2766 of 2021
                                With
        CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2021
             In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 606 of 2021
==========================================================
      KISHORE @ RAVI @ LALO RAJESHBHAI MAHAVIRBHAI KOSHTI
            THROUGH RAJESHBHAI MAHAVIRBHAI KOSHTI
                             Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MEHUL A SURATI(7870) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS SS PATHAK, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       VIKRAM NATH
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                          Date : 09/08/2021

                       COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

1. We have heard Mr. Mehul A. Surati, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. S. Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents.

2. Ms. Pathak, learned AGP states that the affidavit-in- reply is filed on behalf of the State today. Office to trace it and place it on on record.

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assailing the

C/LPA/606/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

correctness of the judgment and order dated 5.7.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2766 of 2021, whereby the writ petition challenging the order of preventive detention was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are only two cases registered against the appellant. First being a case under Sections 394, 452, 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act based on an FIR dated 26.2.2019, the second is about an offence under Sections 379(A)(3)(4) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the FIR had been lodged on 7.11.2020. 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 two cases. It is also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 26.01.2021. 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.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Pathak, learned Assistant

C/LPA/606/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

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 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.

6. 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 two First Information Reports 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'.

7. We are accordingly of the view that the order of

C/LPA/606/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

detention cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.7.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2766 of 2021 is set aside. The detention order dated 26.01.2021 is quashed. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

8. In view of allowing of main matter, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) VATSAL S. KOTECHA