Gujarat High Court
Vijaybhai @ Chino Natwarbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/981/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 981 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9974 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 981 of 2020
==========================================================
VIJAYBHAI @ CHINO NATWARBHAI JAKSIBHAI DABHI THROUGH HIS
FATHER NATWARBHAI JAKSIBHAI DABHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ATIT D THAKORE(5290) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SUBHADRA G PATEL(656) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 20/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. Heard Shri Atit Thakore, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri Dharmesh Devnani, learned AGP for
the State respondent.
2. The affidavitinreply 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
C/LPA/981/2020 ORDER
dated 29.10.2020/04.11.2020 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9974 of
2020, 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 Section 379 of
IPC based on an FIR dated 02.09.2019 and the second
is about an offence under Section 307 of IPC and
other allied sections wherein the FIR had been lodged
on 31.01.2020. 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
29.05.2020. 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
C/LPA/981/2020 ORDER
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, Shri Dharmesh Devnani,
learned AGP 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 Shri 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
C/LPA/981/2020 ORDER
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 a theft under Section 379 of IPC in
which the FIR was against an unknown person and that
too by a lady who could not notice when the items
from her purse got stolen while travelling in a bus.
In the other case which is of a bodily injury where
the wife made a complaint that the present appellant
had caused life threatening injury to her husband
with a knife being stabbed in the stomach. The FIR
itself mentions that a previous incident had taken
place between the parties who were neighbours and in
order to settle the same the parties had gathered
wherein the said incident is said to have taken
place. By no stretch of imagination can we hold that
such two incidents could describe a person as a
dangerous person.
C/LPA/981/2020 ORDER
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.
Consequently, the connected Civil Application stands
disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
