Aaba Thothare Father Of Vishwas ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 4926 Guj

         C/LPA/133/2021                                   ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 133 of 2021

          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8886 of 2020

=============================================
          AABA THOTHARE FATHER OF VISHWAS THOTHARE
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KEYUR A VYAS(3247) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, AGP (99) 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. Keyur Vyas, 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 Clause­15 of the Letters Patent Act assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 30th December, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8886 of 2020, whereby the writ petition challenging the order of preventive detention was dismissed.

C/LPA/133/2021 ORDER

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are only two cases registered against the appellant. First being a case under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR being I­108 of 2019 and the second is also under Sections 454, 457, 380 and 114 of Indian Penal Code being FIR No.Part­A­ 082/2020. 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 not 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 19th July, 2020. It is next submitted that a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 31st August, 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. Chintan Dave, learned AGP submitted that the order of detention is fully justified and the detaining authority after due consideration has passed the said order 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

C/LPA/133/2021 ORDER

the appeal.

5. In the judgment dated 31st August, 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 both the First Information Reports related to an offence of theft. By no stretch of imagination can we hold that such two incidents could describe a person as a dangerous person.

6. 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 30th December, 2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.8886 of 2020 is set aside. The detention order is quashed. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(VIKRAM NATH, C.J.)

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.) AMAR RATHOD...