Gujarat High Court
Bahadurbhai Budhabhai Bhangi Through ... vs State Of Gujarat on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13855/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13855 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BAHADURBHAI BUDHABHAI BHANGI THROUGH KALIBEN BUDHABHAI
BHANGI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
URVESH M PRAJAPATI(8878) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)
1. Present petitioner namely Bahadurbhai Budhabhai
Bhangi filed present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India and challenged the detention order
bearing no.PCB/DTN/PASA/863/2025 dated 06/10/2025
passed under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Gujarat
Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after
referred as 'the Act of 1985') and prayed as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13855/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
"8(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and
setting aside the detention order dated 06.10.2025 at
'Annexure-A', to the petition placing the petitioner under
Preventive Detention, in purported exercise of their
powers under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social
Activities Act, 1985, as being illegal, null and void and
further be place to release the petitioner forthwith."
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
legality and validity of the aforesaid order passed by the
Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State Authorities.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is falsely implicated in all the criminal cases
through transfer warrants which are relied by the detaining
authority in the impugned order of detention. There is no
material available on record to indicate that involvement of
the petitioner in the crime in question. The petitioner is
sought to be falsely implicated on the bases of suspicion and
therefore the impugned order of detention deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted
that the first FIR was registered against the petitioner on
28.05.2025 and last FIR was registered against the petitioner
on 09.09.2025 wherein the petitioner was released on regular
bail by concern court on 30.09.2025 and the impugned order
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13855/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
of detention has been passed on short span on production of
bail bond i.e. on 06.10.2025 without applying the mind with
regard to come to conclusion of passing the aforesaid order.
The petitioner submits that no statements of any anonymous
witnesses are recorded in between the last and only offence
registered and the day on which the impugned order has been
passed. The applicant was release on regular bail by
concerned court on 30.09.2025 and without applying mind in
passing the order of detention the detaining authority has
passed detention order against the petitioner and has
executed upon the petitioner on 06.10.2025 and thus, the
order impugned is passed without proper application of mind.
Moreover, there is no other material to indicate that the
petitioner had indulged into the alleged activities which
makes him a Dangerous Person. In these circumstances, the
impugned order of detention is illegal and bad in law and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued
that there was no material available with the detention
authority to indicate as to how the public health or public
order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner. Thus,
in absence of any such material on record, the order of
detention ought not have been passed. It is further submitted
by learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned
order is passed without application of mind and prima facie
the order is passed mechanically.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13855/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
that the impugned order was execution upon the petitioner
and presently he is detained in the Central Jail, Surat.
7. On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present
petition contended that the detenue is habitual offender and
he has made theft of two wheelers on same modus operandi
and total ten FIRs are registered against the present
petitioner. She further submitted that his activities affected
at the society at large. Hence, the Detaining Authority,
considering the antecedents and past activities of the
detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City
and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.
8. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the core 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 or not?
9. The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner
and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a
reference of total ten offences punishable under Sections
303(2), 317(2) and Section 54 of the BNS Act for theft of
two wheelers being Activa Motor Cycle was made. These
offences were registered from 28.05.2025 to 09.09.2025 in
various police stations of area of Ahmedabad City. It appears
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13855/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
that the petitioner was arrested from 11.09.2025 to
20.09.2025. It is required to be noted that in all offences, the
present petitioner is released on regular bail by the concerned
court. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner was
arrested in one by one offences and released on regular bail
on production of bail bond. The concerned authorities issued
the impugned detention order and detained the present
petitioner.
10. After careful consideration of the material, our
considered view is that there is no material placed before the
authority to establish that the petitioner was convicted of
alleged offences. It appears from the impugned order that no
charge sheet has been filed against the applicant. In other
words, the investigation is going on and yet charge sheet is
not filed and no criminal case is registered against the
petitioner. This fact is required to be considered.
11. Considering the impugned order, it appears that the
provisions of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985 is referred by the
concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to be
reproduced. The same reads as under:
"(c) "dangerous person" means a person, who either by
himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually
commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission
of any of the offences punishable under [Chapter VIII or
Chapter XVI(except section 354, 354A, 354B, 354C,
354D, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, or 377) or Chapter
XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code] or any of
the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13855/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
Act, 1959;"
12. From plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it appears
that undisputedly the present petitioner is not convicted by
any court of law. Not only that but not a single charge sheet
is filed for the alleged offences referred in the impugned order
against the present petitioner and the concerned authority
has wrongly arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the
activities of the detenue could be termed to be acting as a
'dangerous person'. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the subject matter, we are of the considered view that on
the basis of registration of the FIRs, the authority has wrongly
arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the
detenue could be termed to be acting as a 'dangerous person'.
13. In this regard, we would like to refer the decision of the
the Hon'ble Supreme 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 two prohibition offences.
The Apex Court after referring the case of Pushkar
Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 10 held and
observed that mere disturbance of law and order leading to
detention order is thus not necessarily sufficient for action
under preventive detention Act. Paras-17 & 18 are relevant to
refer, which read thus:
"17. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of
this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West
Bengal, where the distinction between `law and order'
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13855/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
and `public order' has been clearly laid down.
Ramaswami, J. speaking for the Court observed as
follows:
10. "Does the expression `public order' take in
every kind of infraction of order or only some
categories thereof? It is manifest that every act of
assault or injury to specific persons does not lead
to public disorder. When two people quarrel and
fight and assault each other inside a house or in a
street, it may be said that there is disorder but not
public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under
the powers vested in the executive authorities
under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but
the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that
they were disturbing public order. The
contravention of any law always affects order but
before it can be said to affect public order, it must
affect the community or the public at large. In this
connection we must draw a line of demarcation
between serious and aggravated forms of disorder
which directly affect the community or injure the
public interest and the relatively minor breaches of
peace of a purely local significance which primarily
injure specific individuals and only in a secondary
sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law
and order leading to disorder is thus not
necessarily sufficient for action under the
Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which
will affect public order comes within the scope of
the Act."
18. In the instant case, the detaining authority, in our
opinion, has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti-
social activities of the petitioner adversely affect or are
likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public
order. It is true some incidents of beating by the
petitioner had taken place, as alleged by the witnesses.
But, such incidents, in our view, do not have any bearing
on the maintenance of public order. The petitioner may
be punished for the alleged offences committed by him
but, surely, the acts constituting the offences cannot be
said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13855/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
community. It may be that the petitioner is a bootlegger
within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act, but merely
because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively
detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid
down in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act, his
activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to
affect adversely the maintenance of public order We
have carefully considered the offences alleged against
the petitioner in the order of detention and also the
allegations made by the witnesses and, in our opinion,
these offences or the allegations cannot be said to have
created any feeling of insecurity or panic or terror
among the members of the public of the area in question
giving rise to the question of maintenance of public
order. The order of detention cannot, therefore, be
upheld."
14. For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered
opinion that, the material on record are not sufficient for
holding that the alleged activities of the detenue have either
affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the
maintenance of public order and therefore, the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be
said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.
15. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned dated 06/10/2025 passed by the respondent
authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenue to be set
at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service permitted.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
