Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Lack of Material Showing Disturbance to Public Order. Detention under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 set aside as mere registration of FIRs does not justify preventive detention.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 23:48:45

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sukhdevsing Sajjusing Sohel, was preventively detained by an order dated 04/12/2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, classifying him as a 'dangerous person' under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The detenue, through his wife Suneeta Sukhdevsing Sohel, challenged the legality and validity of the detention order before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no material available with the detention authority to indicate how public health, public order, or public tranquility was disturbed, and that the order was passed mechanically without application of mind. The learned APP opposed the petition, contending that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities affected society at large, and that the detaining authority had passed the order considering his antecedents and past activities to prevent him from acting prejudicially. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the impugned order was based on registration of FIRs but lacked material to show that the alleged activities disturbed public order or public tranquility. The court held that the order was passed mechanically and without application of mind, and therefore quashed and set aside the detention order. The detenue was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Headnote

A) Preventive Detention - Dangerous Person - Section 2(c) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Lack of Material - The detention order was quashed as there was no material on record to indicate that the alleged activities of the detenue disturbed public order or public tranquility. The court held that mere registration of FIRs does not justify preventive detention. (Paras 1-6)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the detention order classifying the detenue as a 'dangerous person' under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 was valid when there was no material to show disturbance to public order or public tranquility.

Final Decision

The court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 04/12/2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara. The detenue was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Law Points

Preventive detention
dangerous person
public order
subjective satisfaction
material on record

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:437-DB

R/Special Criminal Application No. 16882 of 2025

2026-01-06

N.S.Sanjay Gowda, D. M. Vyas

2026:GUJHC:437-DB

MR MF KHATRI, MR. MAHIRKHAN M PATHAN, MS MONALI BHATT

Sukhdevsing Sajjusing Sohel through Suneeta Sukhdevsing Sohel

State of Gujarat & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to preventive detention order under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985

Remedy Sought

Quashing of detention order and release of detenue

Filing Reason

Detenue's wife challenged the detention order dated 04/12/2025 passed by Police Commissioner, Vadodara classifying detenue as dangerous person

Issues

Whether the detention order was valid when there was no material to show disturbance to public order or public tranquility

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that there was no material to indicate disturbance to public health, public order, or public tranquility; order was passed mechanically without application of mind. Respondent argued that detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected society at large; order was passed considering antecedents and past activities.

Ratio Decidendi

Preventive detention cannot be based solely on registration of FIRs; there must be material to show that the alleged activities disturb public order or public tranquility. The detention order was passed mechanically without application of mind.

Judgment Excerpts

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.

Procedural History

The detenue was preventively detained vide order dated 04/12/2025 by Police Commissioner, Vadodara. The detenue's wife filed Special Criminal Application No. 16882 of 2025 before the Gujarat High Court challenging the order. The court heard both sides and delivered judgment on 06/01/2026.