Gujarat High Court
Rahul Gopalbhai @ Gopibhai Patani ... vs Police Commissioner Ahmedabad ... on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/LPA/134/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 134 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12524 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 134 of 2021
==========================================================
RAHUL GOPALBHAI @ GOPIBHAI PATANI (GOTAKAVALA) THORUGH
HIS MOTHER
Versus
POLICE COMMISSIONER AHMEDABAD CITY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHENDRA U VORA(3034) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, 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 : 15/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. We have heard Mr.Mahendra Vora, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr.Chintan Dave, 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 30.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Special Civil Application No.12524 of 2020,
whereby the writ petition challenging the order of
C/LPA/134/2021 ORDER
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 Sections 324,
294(B), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act based on an
FIR dated 14.04.2020 and the second is about an
offence under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 326,
294(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act based on an FIR
dated 15.04.2020. 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 25.07.2020. 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.
C/LPA/134/2021 ORDER
State of Gujarat, being Letters Patent Appeal No.454
of 2020, squarely covers the case of the present
appellant.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Chintan Dave, 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 Mr.Dave 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
C/LPA/134/2021 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 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
C/LPA/134/2021 ORDER
order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.12.2020
passed in Special Civil Application No.12524 of 2020
is set aside. The detention order dated 25.07.2020 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
