Raaylabhai @ Rahul Kaalubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 4667 Guj

            C/LPA/103/2021                                    ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 103 of 2021
        In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11580 of 2020
==========================================================
            RAAYLABHAI @ RAHUL KAALUBHAI PALAAS
                             Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AR SHAH FOR MR VISHAL S AWTANI(7913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) 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 : 24/03/2021
                            ORAL ORDER

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

1. We have heard Mr.A.R.Shah, Advocate for

Mr.Vishal Awtani, 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 09.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge

in Special Civil Application No.11580 of 2020,

whereby the writ petition challenging the order of

preventive detention was dismissed.

C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

there are only five cases registered against the

appellant. First being a case under Sections 457, 380

and 114 of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR

dated 27.08.2019, the second is about an offence

under Sections 457, 380 and and 114 of the Indian

Penal Code based on an FIR dated 10.09.2019, the

third being a case under Sections 457, 380 and 114 of

the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR dated

15.09.2019, the fourth is about an offence under

Sections 457, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code

based on an FIR dated 21.09.2019 and the fifth being

a case under Sections 457, 380 and 114 of the Indian

Penal Code based on an FIR dated 26.09.2019. 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

five cases and he is already on bail. It is also

submitted that the appellant is in custody since

C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER

20.08.2020. 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 present appellant.

4. On the other hand, Mr.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 five 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.

C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER

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 the five FIRs related to an

offence of extorting money from people. 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.

C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER

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 09.12.2020

passed in Special Civil Application No.11580 of 2020

is set aside. The detention order dated 20.08.2020 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