Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tushabh @ Roman Sujitbhai Narjibhai Indrekar (Chhara), was preventively detained by an order dated 20.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, branding him as a 'dangerous person' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. The detenue, through his wife Vishwaben Rajeshbhai Bajrange, challenged the legality and validity of the detention order by way of a Special Criminal Application before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no material available with the detaining authority to indicate how the public health or public order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner. It was further submitted that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and mechanically. The learned APP opposed the petition, contending that the detenue was a habitual offender and his activities affected society at large. The court, after hearing both sides, examined the grounds of detention and found that the detaining authority had relied on two criminal cases registered against the detenue. The court noted that the detaining authority had not recorded any satisfaction that the activities of the detenue were likely to disturb public order or public tranquility. The court held that the order of detention was passed mechanically without application of mind and that the detaining authority had failed to demonstrate any material indicating that the detenue's acts adversely affected the maintenance of public order. The court distinguished between 'law and order' and 'public order', observing that the alleged activities, even if true, would only affect 'law and order' and not 'public order'. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the detenue to be set at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Dangerous Person - Section 2(c) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Lack of Material - The detenue was preventively detained as a dangerous person based on registration of two FIRs. The court held that mere registration of FIRs does not constitute material to show disturbance of public order or public tranquility. The detention order was passed mechanically without application of mind and was quashed. (Paras 1-6) B) Preventive Detention - Public Order - Distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' - The court observed that the activities alleged against the detenue, even if true, would only affect 'law and order' and not 'public order'. The detaining authority failed to demonstrate any material indicating that the detenue's acts adversely affected the maintenance of public order. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order passed under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, branding the detenue as a 'dangerous person', is sustainable in law when there is no material to show that his activities disturbed public order or public tranquility.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 20.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City is quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- dangerous person
- public order
- subjective satisfaction
- mechanical exercise of power
- lack of material
