Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela ... vs Commissioner Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 6901 Guj

     C/SCA/6853/2021                              JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6853 of 2021


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                    KARANSINH CHETANSINH VAGHELA
                 THROUGH VAGHELA BHUMIKABA KARANSINH

                                   Versus

                       COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
MR HARDIK SONI, AGP for the Respondents
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

                              Date : 24/06/2021

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this petition is made to the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, dated 06.04.2021, treating the petitioner as a 'Bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social

C/SCA/6853/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2021

Activities Act, 1985.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that solely on the basis of the FIR in question, the petitioner could not be termed to be a 'bootlegger' and the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining Authority, in the facts of the case is unsustainable and the same be quashed and set aside. Attention of this Court is invited to page - 145 of the paper- book and it is submitted that except that, there is no other legally sustainable material against the petitioner. It is noted that learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.5541 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Application No.2031 of 2021. It is submitted that this petition be allowed.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned AGP has vehemently opposed this petition. It is submitted that in the facts of the present case, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining Authority be not interfered with. Specific reference is made that the petitioner is a police constable. It is submitted that, it is the petitioner who, as per the investigation, is facilitating the transportation, unloading and storage of liquor. It is submitted that the detaining Authority, who in the present case is the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, has taken very serious view, since the petitioner is working in the police force. It is further submitted that though the FIR in question being CR. No.11191012201277 of 2020 registered with the Danilimda Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a), 65(e), 116B, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is dated 27.10.2020, the petitioner was on run till 06.04.2021 and that is an additional

C/SCA/6853/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2021

factor, which may be considered by the Court. Learned AGP has also drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.5541 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Application No.2031 of 2021. It is submitted by learned AGP that this petition be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under :

4.1 The petitioner is the member of the police force. He is working as an Unarmed Police Constable (Lok Rakshak). He is stated to be on the roles of Aslali Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural).

4.2 The date of FIR is 27.10.2020. Huge quantity of liquor is alleged to have been transported in the city.

4.3 On investigation, the police found that, this business is being facilitated by some of the employees from within the police force. The prime accused, by different statements, gave common name of the present petitioner that it is he, who has facilitated this business.

4.4 The detaining Authority has, on the basis of the above and such other material, arrived at the satisfaction that, such elements like the petitioner should not walk free.

4.5 Had this been a case of an ordinary citizen, then also the matter could not have been viewed lightly. Further, when the detaining Authority has found that it is the police constable

C/SCA/6853/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2021

who is facilitating this and has passed detention order, any interference by this Court would prove to be counter productive.

4.6 This Court finds that, firstly the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining Authority, in the facts of the present case need not be interfered with. Independently, this Court has arrived at the same conclusion that, it would be hazardous for public order to permit the petitioner to walk free. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed.

4.7 Additionally, it is noted that, the petitioner had attempted protection at pre-detention stage by filing Special Civil Application No.5541 of 2021 and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.03.2021 for the reasons recorded therein. It is further noted that, the petitioner has also attempted protection under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.2031 of 2021 and on the said application also, there is no protection. The petitioner, a police constable, was on run for months.

4.8 In totality, this Court finds that, this petition needs to be dismissed.

5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(PARESH UPADHYAY, J) M.H. DAVE/64