Gujarat High Court
Jay @ Batlo Sureshbhai Pujari vs State Of Gujarat on 16 February, 2021
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/2751/2021 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2751 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to NO
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law NO
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
JAY @ BATLO SURESHBHAI PUJARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIM M SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for the Respondents - State Authorities
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 16/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by
the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, dated
C/SCA/2751/2021 JUDGMENT
17.10.2020, whereby the petitioner is detained as 'a
dangerous person' under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social
Activities Act, 1985.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that,
in the FIRs, which are referred to in the impugned order, there
is over implication and in some cases, even unbelievable story
is narrated. It is submitted that the detaining authority could
not have recorded satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner
was a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(c) of
the Act. It is additionally submitted that in none of the
offences, conviction is recorded and on that count also, the
impugned order is unsustainable. It is further submitted that,
on earlier occasions, whenever PASA orders were passed
against the petitioner, each time they were challenged and
each time they were interfered with by this Court. It is
submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant
Government Pleader has submitted that, the detaining
authority has rightly arrived at the satisfaction that, the
petitioner was a dangerous person and he, being a free man,
was creating a serious situation for the public at large and
therefore no interference be made by this Court. In response to
the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that in
none of the FIRs in question, conviction is recorded, it is
submitted that the same is not the requirement of law.
Attention of this Court is invited to the fact that earlier, on
three occasions, PASA orders were passed against the present
petitioner. It is submitted that in the impugned detention
order, those three orders are referred to as externment orders,
C/SCA/2751/2021 JUDGMENT
however there is an error in that regard, those orders were
detention orders under PASA. It is submitted that this petition
be dismissed.
4. This Court has considered the FIRs which are on record.
The details of those FIRs are as under :
(i) C.R.- I No.71 of 2018 dated 07.08.2018 registered
with the Vasna Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the
offences punishable under Sections 324, 326,
294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.
(ii) C.R. No.11191016200072 of 2020 (Part-A) dated
21.06.2020 registered with the Paldi Police Station,
Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the
Gujarat Police Act.
(iii) C.R. No.11191066200784 of 2020 (Part-A) dated
09.07.2020 registered with the Vasna Police
Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable
under Sections 354(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code.
(iv) C.R. No. 11191066200834 of 2020 (Part-A) dated
30.07.2020 registered with the Vasna Police
Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable
under Sections 294(b), 427, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.
C/SCA/2751/2021 JUDGMENT
5. This Court has considered the narration in each of the
FIRs, line-by-line. On conjoint consideration thereof,
independent of what is recorded by the detaining authority,
this Court also arrives at the conclusion that, a citizen on the
road or even in his own residence would feel insecure, if the
person like the petitioner would pass by him. The offence in
each FIR, if is seen by Section Number(s) of IPC, it may not
convey the seriousness, but once the narration in those FIRs
are considered, it gives different colour altogether. The
satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority, as required
under the Act, in the facts of this case, can not be termed to be
erroneous in any manner. Therefore, on facts, no interference
is required in the impugned order. This petition therefore
needs to be dismissed.
6. So far the contention that in none of the FIRs, the
petitioner is convicted is concerned, the same needs to be
rejected on plain reading of Section 2(c) of the Act. The
requirement of the accused having been convicted for the
offence, as contemplated under Section 2(bb) of the Act (prior
to amendment dated 07.09.2020) is absent in Section 2(c) of
the Act as it stands. This argument therefore is rejected.
7. So far interference by this Court in PASA orders on earlier
occasions is concerned, this Court finds that, it is a double
edged sword and would not help the petitioner. The argument
that three times detention orders are set aside by this Court,
may be perceived by the petitioner as a fact in his favour,
however it may as well tilt balance against the petitioner. Be
that as it may, this Court arrives at the conclusion that, if any
interference is made by this Court, in the facts like this, it
C/SCA/2751/2021 JUDGMENT
would be counter-productive for the safety of the people at
large. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J)
M.H. DAVE/26
