Prakesh @ Gatti Manilal Thakor ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 4906 Guj

            C/LPA/301/2021                                            ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 301 of 2021
        In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11793 of 2020
                              With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2021
           In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 301 of 2021
==========================================================
   PRAKESH @ GATTI MANILAL THAKOR THROGUH SHAKRIBEN MANILAL
                             THAKOR
                              Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHANSHU S PATEL(655) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KD PARMAR(589) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

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

                           Date : 31/03/2021
                        COMMON ORAL ORDER

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

1. We have heard Mr.Sudhanshu Patel, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for the State

respondents.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been

preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent

assailing the correctness of the judgment and order

dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge

C/LPA/301/2021 ORDER

in Special Civil Application No.11793 of 2020,

whereby the writ petition challenging the order of

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 395,

394, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1)

of the Gujarat Police Act based on an First

Information Report dated 17.03.2020 and the second is

about an offence under Sections 392, 397, 395, 114 of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the

Gujarat Police Act wherein the First Information

Report had been lodged on 17.03.2020. 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 18.07.2020. It is next submitted that a recent

C/LPA/301/2021 ORDER

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.D.M.Devnani, 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. 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.

5. In the judgment dated 31.08.2020 in the case of

Vijay alias Ballu (supra), the issue relating to

C/LPA/301/2021 ORDER

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 First Information

Report related to an offence of causing hurt while

committing robbery and dacoity in which the First

Information Report was against an unknown person. In

the other case, the offence came to be registered for

attempt to cause death or grievous hurt while

committing robbery or dacoity. By no stretch of

imagination can we hold that such two 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.

C/LPA/301/2021 ORDER

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 is set aside. The

detention order is quashed. The appellant be set at

liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the

connected Civil Application for fixing early date of

hearing stands disposed of.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) GAURAV J THAKER