Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aveshbhai @ Avlo Aiyubbhai Odiya (Pinjara), was preventively detained by an order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot 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 challenged the legality and validity of the detention order through a petition filed by his friend Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Thummar. The petitioner's advocate argued that there was no material available with the detention authority to indicate how the detenue's activities disturbed public health, public order, or public tranquility, and that the order was passed without application of mind and mechanically. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the detenue was a habitual offender and his activities affected society. The court, after hearing both sides, examined the record and found that the detaining authority had relied on two criminal cases registered against the detenue, but there was no material to show that the alleged activities had any bearing on public order. The court held that the mere registration of FIRs does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the detenue's acts affected public order, and in the absence of such material, the detention order could not be sustained. The court quashed and set aside the detention order and directed that the detenue 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 - Requirement of Material Showing Disturbance to Public Order - The detenue was preventively detained as a dangerous person under the Act. The court held that in the absence of any material on record to indicate how the detenue's activities disturbed public health, public order, or public tranquility, the detention order could not be sustained. The mere registration of FIRs against the detenue does not automatically lead to the conclusion that his acts affected public order. (Paras 1-6) B) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - Application of Mind - The court found that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and mechanically, as the detaining authority failed to consider whether the alleged activities had any bearing on public order. The order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 4-6)
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', was valid when there was no material to show that his activities disturbed public order or public tranquility.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the detention order dated 09.01.2026, and directed that the detenue 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
- Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act
- 1985
