Shambhunath Rajbahadur Ramapati ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3284 Guj

         C/LPA/113/2021                                  ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 113 of 2021

         In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9514 of 2020
                              With
         CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021
           In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 113 of 2021
==========================================================
         SHAMBHUNATH RAJBAHADUR RAMAPATI GAUTAM
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR N R DESAI(6504) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) 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 : 25/02/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

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

1 We have heard Mr. Panthil Majmudar, 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 10.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9514 of 2020, whereby the writ

C/LPA/113/2021 ORDER

petition challenging the order of preventive detention was dismissed.

3 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are only two cases registered against the appellant. First being a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR being 28/20 (C.R. No. 856/2020) and the second is also about the offence of theft being FIR No. 29/2020 (C.R.No. 857/2020) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 26.07.2020. 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.

4 On the other hand, Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the order of

C/LPA/113/2021 ORDER

detention is fully justified and the detaining authority after due satisfaction has passed the said order 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, 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 both the First Information Reports related to an offence of theft. By no stretch of imagination can we hold that such two incidents could describe a person as a dangerous person.

6 We are accordingly of the view that the order of detention cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal

C/LPA/113/2021 ORDER

succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9514 of 2020 is set aside. The detention order is quashed. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

7 Consequently, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) A.M. PIRZADA