Allowed

Sanjay Udalsingh Bhadoriya v. State of Gujarat Thr' Jt.Secretary

Gujarat HC8 Aug 2005SCA/9876/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order. The court held that since the petitioner was in judicial custody, there was no likelihood of continuing antisocial activities. The detention order was quashed due to lack of material regarding bail likelihood, relying on Amrutlal Vs. Union of India.

What did the court decide?

Detention order of 22.03.2005 quashed and set aside; detenu set at liberty forthwith if not required for other cases.

Sanjay Udalsingh Bhadoriya Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gujarat HC (2005)

¶1

JUDGMENT

¶2

SCA/9876/2005

¶3

1/3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9876 of 2005

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE

¶8

==============================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶12

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶13

============================================================== SANJAY UDALSINGH BHADORIYA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THR' JT.SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)

¶14

==============================================================

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

MR JB DASTOOR for Petitioner No(s).: 1. Mr.P.D.Bhate, AGP for Respondent No(s).: 1. RULE SERVED for Respondent No(s).: 2. None for Respondent No(s).: 3. ==================================================================

¶17

CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE

¶18

Date : 08/08/2005

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

1. Leave to join Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad city as party respondent no. 3.

¶21

SCA/9876/2005

¶22

2/3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

By filing this petition, the petitioner detenu has challenged the detention order dated 22.03.2005 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (“the Act” for short), as, the “bootlegger” and is required to be detained under the preventive detention, so that, he may not continue with such type of illegal activities.

¶25

2. Along with the detention order, the detenu was also served with the grounds of detention of the same date. In the said grounds, there is a reference to three criminal cases which are filed under the Bombay Prohibition Act. In the grounds of detention, the statements of certain witnesses have been recorded.

¶26

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner detenu has submitted that when the detention order dated 22.03.2005 came to be passed, the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with the offence at Sr.No.3 registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act and there was no likelihood of continuing anti-social dangerous activities so as to disturb the public order by the detenu. It is submitted that there was no material before the detaining authority in respect of filing of the bail application or in respect of likelihood of petitioner being released on bail, which results in nonapplication of mind vitiating the detention order.

¶27

4. On the other hand, Mr.Bhate, learned AGP has tried to support the impugned detention order passed against the petitioner. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.3.

¶28

5. The impugned order came to be challenged by the petitioner detenu on various grounds. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in judicial custody when the detention order dated 22.03.2005 came to be passed by the detaining authority. Therefore, when the petitioner was in judicial custody, there was no likelihood of continuing antisocial dangerous activities so as to disturb the public order by the detenu. It is pertinent to note that likelihood of filing of bail application by the petitioner and likelihood of releasing the petitioner on bail, both are entirely different and separate propositions. It is required to be noted that there must be some credible

¶29

SCA/9876/2005

¶30

3/3

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

material before the detaining authority to reach to the
subjective satisfaction either about likelihood of filing of
bail application and/or likelihood of petitioner being released
on bail. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrutlal Vs.
Union of India, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3675 wherein the Apex
Court observed that there must be cogent materials before the
officer passing the detention order that the detenu was likely
to be released on bail. Admittedly, the petitioner was in
judicial custody and there was no material before the detaining
authority to reach to the subjective satisfaction that the
detenu was likely to file the bail application and was likely
to be released on bail and in absence thereof, the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated, and,
therefore, the impugned detention order is required to be
quashed and set aside.

¶33

6. In view of what is stated above, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 22.03.2005 is quashed and set aside. The detenu Sanjay Udalsingh Bhadoriya is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. Writ to be sent to the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City.

¶34

( SHARAD D DAVE, J )

¶35

srilatha

Sanjay Udalsingh Bhadoriya v. State of Gujarat Thr' Jt.Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Udalsingh Bhadoriya v. State of Gujarat Thr' Jt.Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravinaben Alias Pavli Ganpat Thakore Vs Commissioner of Police Vadodara

Shaileshsinh @ Shelsinh Narpatsinh Rajput Vs the State of Gujrat

Anil Bujwar Jagdish Bujwar Jat Vs State of Guajrat Thr' Secretary

Vishnubhai Baburao Marathi Thro.Wife - Ashaben v Marathi Vs State of Gujarat

Pinky,W/O.Upendrabhai Narendrabhai Kodekar Chhara Vs State of Guajrat Thr' Secretary

Aslam @ Bodio Haiderminya Shaikh Vs Commissioner of Police Vadodara