Gujarat High Court

Ketan @ Kishan @ Targalo Jayantibhai ... vs Commissioner Of Police on 11 April, 2025

Author: Ilesh J. Vora

Bench: Ilesh J. Vora

                                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                              R/SCR.A/4681/2025                                          ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025

                                                                                                                        undefined




                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4681 of 2025

                        ==========================================================
                         KETAN @ KISHAN @ TARGALO JAYANTIBHAI NARANBHAI BAROT THRO
                                      PUSHPABEN W/O. JAYANTIBHAI BAROT
                                                   Versus
                                       COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR BH SOLANKI(5353) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                        MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondents
                        ==========================================================

                             CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
                                   and
                                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                               Date : 11/04/2025

                                                 ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT)

1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order

passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City dated 06.03.2025, whereby the petitioner is detained under the

Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.

2.1 At the outset, it is required to be kept in mind

the object of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities

Act, which is as under :

" An Act to provide for preventive detention of boot-leggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders, immoral traffic offenders, property grabbers, cyber offenders, money lending offenders and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025

undefined

sexual offenders for preventing their anti-social and dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."

2.2 At this stage, Rule 178 of the Gujarat High Court

Rules, 1993 is also required to be kept in mind, which is as

under :

" 178. Summary dismissal or Rule Nisi - The Court may either summarily dismiss the petition or order a rule nisi to be issued against the respondent against whom it is sought, as it thinks fit. Any rule so granted shall not be made returnable within less than 15 days after the service thereof on the respondent, unless otherwise directed by the Court."

2.3 It is relevant to note that in the present matter,

this Court has issued 'Rule' vide order dated 04.04.2025 and

made it returnable today i.e. on 11.04.2025, which is, prima

facie, not complying the requirement of the Rule noted above. Therefore, this aspect is required to be kept in mind while

considering the other matters for admission, henceforth.

2.4 Further, from the record, it is also relevant to

note that the detaining authority has considered three FIRs

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025

undefined

which are registered against the present petitioner under the

Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023; and that in the year 2016,

2017, twice in 2020, 2021 and 2023, the authority has passed

the order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social

Activities Act against the present petitioner and the

petitioner has not made any representation before the

concerned authority regarding the same. However, it recent

past, this Court has, without asking any response from the

concerned authority / State to file affidavit in support of the

impugned order, passed many orders on the returnable date

without inviting much debate on the impugned orders and on

the basis of earlier judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court as well as the orders / judgments passed by this

Court. Therefore, this Court has no option at this stage but

to consider this petition accordingly. The Registry shall take

note of this observation.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted

that, mere filing of FIR against the petitioner itself is no

ground, for the detaining authority, to arrive at the

conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial

to the maintenance of the public order. It is further

submitted that, no legally sustainable satisfaction is recorded

by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order

and therefore the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025

undefined

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent State Authorities has supported the detention

order passed by the detaining authority and has submitted

that the impugned order is based on sufficient material and

the detaining authority has rightly arrived at the conclusion

that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the

maintenance of the public order. It is submitted that this

petition be dismissed.

5.1 Having considered the facts as well as the

submissions made by the respective parties, the issue arise

as to whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining

Authority in exercise of his powers under the provisions of

the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law ?

5.2 After careful consideration of the material on

record, we find that the detaining authority has exercised the

powers, treating the petitioner as a 'dangerous person' within

the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The FIR/s, being (i)

C.R. No.11191029240276 of 2024 dated 24.09.2024 registered

under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 296(B) and 54 of the BNS and

Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act with the Rakhiyal Police

Station (ii) C.R. No.11191029240310 of 2024 dated

11.11.2024 registered under Sections 309(4), 115(2) and 54 of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025

undefined

the BNS and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act with the

Rakhiyal Police Station and (iii) C.R. No.11191004240700 of

2024 dated 22.10.2024 registered under Sections 189(2),

191(1), 333, 351(3) and 324(4) of the BNS and Section 135(1)

of the G.P. Act with the Rakhiyal Police Station, which are

the basis to treat the petitioner as such a person is referred

to in the impugned order and further details in that regard

are on record. Said FIR/s and other material which is on

record is considered by this Court. On conjoint consideration

thereof it transpires that, the detaining authority fell in error

in treating the activities of the petitioner as prejudicial to

the maintenance of the public order. The distinction between

'the law and order' and 'the public order' needs to be kept in

mind, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal, 1969 (1)

SCC 10, wherein it is observed that mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is thus not necessarily

sufficient for action under preventive detention Act.

5.3 Under the circumstances, we are of the considered

view that on the basis of prohibition case/s, the authority has

wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the

activities of the detenue could be termed to be acting in a

manner 'prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. In

our opinion, the said offence/s do not have any bearing on

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/4681/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025

undefined

the maintenance of public order. In this connection, we may

refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush

Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, wherein, the detention order was made on the basis of the registration of the prohibition offence/s. The

impugned order, on facts, fails on this test. The impugned

order therefore needs to be quashed and set aside.

5.4 It is noted that, in the grounds of the detention,

the detaining authority has recorded to the effect that,

according to him, the activities of the petitioner create a

sense of alarm and feeling of insecurity in the minds of

public at large, however on weighing this vis-a-vis the

material on record, this Court finds that, the citation of such

words is more in the nature of rituals rather than with any

significance to the alleged activities of the petitioner.

5.5 In totality, we find that, the impugned order is

unsustainable and needs to be quashed and set aside.