Krunal Alias Krunal S/O ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3694 Guj

            C/LPA/106/2021                                        ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 106 of 2021
         In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9852 of 2020
==========================================================
        KRUNAL ALIAS KRUNAL S/O VITTHALBHAI VADWALE
                              Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN BHARDA FOR MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for Appellant No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                           Date : 03/03/2021
                            ORAL ORDER

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

1. We have heard Mr.Zubin Bharda, Advocate for

Mr.Kishan Daiya, 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.9852 of 2020, whereby

the writ petition challenging the order of preventive

detention was dismissed.

C/LPA/106/2021 ORDER

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

there are only two cases registered against the

appellant. First being a case under Sections 323,

324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

135 of the Gujarat Police Act based on an FIR dated

09.04.2020 and the second is about an offence under

Sections 336, 427, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act

wherein the FIR had been lodged on 10.06.2020. 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. It is also submitted

that the appellant is in custody since 05.08.2020. 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

C/LPA/106/2021 ORDER

present appellant.

4. In the other hand, Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned

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 Ms.Pathak 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.

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

C/LPA/106/2021 ORDER

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 two FIRs related

to an offence of causing hurt only. By no stretch of

imagination can we hold that such incidents could

describe a person as a dangerous person.

6. 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.

7. 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 dated 10.12.2020

passed in Special Civil Application No.9852 of 2020

C/LPA/106/2021 ORDER

is set aside. The detention order dated 05.08.2020 is

quashed. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if

not required in any other criminal case.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) GAURAV J THAKER