TITLE: Pravinkumar V State of Gujarat
Decided On-: 02/08/2023
672 of 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia and M.R Mengdey
INTRODUCTION- The current petition challenges the respondent’s detention order that placed the petitioner—a detenue as defined by section 2(b) of the Act—in detention. The respondent is the detaining authority and was acting within the scope of its authority under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985
FACTS OF THE CASE
Detenue contends that the order of detention challenged in this petition should be quashed and overturned on the grounds that the filing of a FIR for violations of Sections 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 65(e), 81, and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act does not, on its own, bring the detenu’s situation within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. A knowledgeable attorney for the petitioner further argued that any illegal activity that is likely to be committed or is alleged to have been committed cannot be connected to or have anything to do with maintaining public order; at most, it can be considered a violation of law and order.
In addition, other than witness statements and the filing of the aforementioned FIRs, there is no other pertinent or convincing evidence linking the alleged anti-social behaviour of the detainee to a breach of public order.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The learned advocate further argued that it is not possible to conclude from the facts of the case that the detenu’s involvement in criminal cases had a negative impact on society’s social fabric and eventually posed a threat to the very continuation of people’s daily lives as they know it, or that the detenu’s filing of criminal cases had thrown the entire social system into disarray, making it different
The learned AGP for the respondent-State defended the detention order issued by the authority and argued that enough information and evidence discovered during the course of the investigation and provided to the detainee indicate that the detainee is accustomed to engaging in the activity as defined by Section 2(b) of the Act. Taking these facts into account, the learned AGP for the respondent-State argued that the detention order was properly issued.
Primarily, it is determined that the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid, and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of
In light of the foregoing, we are inclined to grant this petition because simple FIR registration by itself cannot be connected to a violation of maintaining public order, the authority cannot pursue a claim under the Act, and there is no other pertinent or convincing evidence to support the exercise of the authority granted by section 3(1) of the Act. As a result, the current petition is approved, and the respondent’s detaining authority’s contested order of detention from 24.6.2023 is revoked and annulled. If not needed in any other situation, the detainee is to be released immediately. Rule is accordingly made absolute.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa
