Bharat @ Ajyo @ Ajay Nathaji Thakor ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 2968 Guj

          C/LPA/57/2021                                ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 57 of 2021
        In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10012 of 2020
==========================================================
 BHARAT @ AJYO @ AJAY NATHAJI THAKOR THORUGH HIS MOTHER
                 RATANABEN NATHAJI THAKOR
                             Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANURAG R RATHOR(9315) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
        NATH
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

                          Date : 20/02/2021

                           ORAL ORDER

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

1 We have heard Mr. Anurag R. Rathor, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents.

2 The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State is on record.

3 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 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10012 of 2020, whereby the writ

C/LPA/57/2021 ORDER

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 395, 394, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act based on an FIR dated 17.03.2020 and the second is about an offence under Sections 392, 397, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act wherein the FIR had been lodged on 17.03.2020. 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 and he is already on bail in both the cases. It is also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 19.07.2020. 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.

5          On the other hand, Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned






         C/LPA/57/2021                                       ORDER

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 Mr. Devnani that apart from the two 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.

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 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

C/LPA/57/2021 ORDER

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.

7 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.

8 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)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM