Quashed

Jaydevsinh @ Jigar Jashvantsinh Gohil through His Father v. Police Commissioner

Gujarat HC5 Jul 2012SCA/2533/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order of detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. The Court held that mere registration of FIRs does not establish a threat to public order. The detention order was quashed as no cogent material proved the detenue disturbed public order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 10.02.2012 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Jaydevsinh @ Jigar Jashvantsinh Gohil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

SCA/2533/2012

¶2

1/4

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2533 of 2012

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE

¶8

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

¶9

JAYDEVSINH @ JIGAR JASHVANTSINH GOHIL THROUGH HIS FATHER - Petitioner(s) Versus

¶10

POLICE COMMISSIONER & 2 - Respondent(s)

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

MR JAPAN V DAVEfor Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MS MAITHILI MEHTA AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE

¶16

Date : 05/07/2012

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

1. This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 10.02.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the detenue as a “dangerous person” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.

¶20

1. Learned counsel for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the ground that the registration of two offences by itself cannot bring the

¶21

SCA/2533/2012

¶22

2/4

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

case of the detenue within the purview of definition “dangerous person” under Section 2(c) of the Act. Learned counsel for the detenue further submits that the illegal activity carried out as alleged cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of the public order and at the most it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statements of witnesses and registration of FIRs, no other relevant or cogent material is available on record connecting the alleged anti-social activities of the detenue with breach of the public order.

¶25

Learned counsel for the detenue, placing reliance on the decisions reported in the cases of (i) Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad (Vekaria) v. State of Gujarat reported in 2000(3) GLR 2696 ; (ii) Ashokbhai Jivraj @Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commisioenr, Surat reported in 2000(1) GLH 393 ; and (iii) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M.Mehta, reported in (1995)3 SCC 237, submitted that the case on hand is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions. Learned counsel for the detenue further submits that it is not possible to hold in the facts of the present case that the activities of the detenue with reference to the criminal case/s had affected even tempo of the society, posing a threat to the very existence of the normal and routine life of the people at large or that on the basis of the criminal case/s, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by the rule of law by disturbing the public order.

¶26

SCA/2533/2012

¶27

3/4

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

1. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned AGP for the respondent-State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that the detenue is a dangerous person and sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue, indicating that the detenue is in habit of indulging into activities as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and the detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the subjective satisfaction arrived at 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 since the law of the land i.e. Indian Penal Code and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations as have been levelled against the detenue cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenue as a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and, unless and until the material is there to make out a case that the person concerned has become a threat and a menace to the society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that the whole social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a dangerous person within the meaning of

¶31

SCA/2533/2012

¶32

4/4

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Section 2(c) of the Act. Except general statement, there is no material on record which shows that the detenue is acting in such a manner which is dangerous to the public order. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad (Vekaria)(supra); (ii) Ashokbhai Jivraj @Jivabhai Solanki (supra); and (iii) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh (supra), the Court is of the opinion that the activities of the detenue cannot be said to be dangerous to the maintenance of public order and at the most fall under the maintenance of “law and order”.

¶35

1. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this petition because simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority can take recourse under the Indian Penal Code and no other relevant or cogent material exists for invoking powers under Section 3(2) of the Act.

¶36

1. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2012 of detention passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

¶37

( ANANT S. DAVE, J .)

¶38

PIYUSH

Jaydevsinh @ Jigar Jashvantsinh Gohil through His Father v. Police Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaydevsinh @ Jigar Jashvantsinh Gohil through His Father v. Police Commissioner

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

Smitaben Vijaykumar Shah Vs Jayantilal Veljibhai Rathod DEL.CT.ORD.DT.2/3/2012

Mahendra @ Vijay @ Sanjay Barodawala S/O Virsing Panchal Vs State of Gujarat

Anilbhai Hasmukhbhai Joshi through His Brother Rahul Vs State of Gujarat

Soma Alias Kamleshbhai Vajesing Gohil Vs Commissioner of Police

Amarkumar @Khajli Mahendrabhairupda Thro Friend Yogendra Vs State of Gujarat

Mustufakhan Nawazkhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat Thro Secretary