Dinesh @ Dinio S/O Ishwarbhai ... vs The State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 4923 Guj

            C/LPA/144/2021                                             ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 144 of 2021
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9146 of 2020

==========================================================
DINESH @ DINIO S/O ISHWARBHAI SHIRSATH THRU HIS NEXT FRIEND
                 MUKESH SURESH GAYAKWAD
                            Versus
                    THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL(2968) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR CHINTAN DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                           Date : 31/03/2021
                            ORAL ORDER

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

1. We have heard Mr.Gajendra Baghel, 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

assailing the correctness of the judgment and order

dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge

in Special Civil Application No.9146 of 2020, whereby

the writ petition challenging the order of preventive

C/LPA/144/2021 ORDER

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 386,

323, 504, 114 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act based on an

FIR dated 29.11.2019 and the second is about an

offence under Sections 307, 504 and 506(2) of the

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

Police Act based on an FIR dated 11.03.2020. 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. It is also submitted

that the appellant is in custody since 10.06.2020. 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

C/LPA/144/2021 ORDER

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

three 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

C/LPA/144/2021 ORDER

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

order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2020

C/LPA/144/2021 ORDER

passed in Special Civil Application No.9146 of 2020

is set aside. The detention order dated 10.06.2020 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