Gujarat High Court
Aslam Mohammed @ Godadi Gulam ... vs State Of Gujarat on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, R.M.Chhaya
C/LPA/286/2021 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 286 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10259 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ASLAM MOHAMMED @ GODADI GULAM MOHAMMED SHAIKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HASMUKH S SOLANKI(6778) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 05/05/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
C/LPA/286/2021 JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri Hasmukh Solanki, learned counsel for
the appellant and Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the State respondent.
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 03.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Special Civil Application No.10259 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 379 and
114 of Indian Penal Code based on an First
Information Report dated 24.06.2020 and the second is
about an offence under Section 324, 323, 294(B),
506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section
135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act wherein the First
Information Report had been lodged on 14.07.2020.
Apart from it there is no other material against the
appellant. The invoking of jurisdiction under the
preventive detention law is totally unjustified as
C/LPA/286/2021 JUDGMENT
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 29.07.2020. 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. State of Gujarat,
being Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2020, squarely
covers the case of the present appellant.
4. On the other hand, Ms.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 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
C/LPA/286/2021 JUDGMENT
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
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 a theft under Section 379 of Indian
Penal Code. In the other case the role attributed to
the present appellant is of giving kick and fist
blows. By no stretch of imagination can we hold that
such two incidents could describe a person as a
dangerous person.
C/LPA/286/2021 JUDGMENT
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 03.12.2020
passed in Special Civil Application No.10259 of 2020
is set aside. The detention order dated 29.07.2020 is
quashed. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if
not required in any other case.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
