In a recent landmark judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order under the PASA Act involving theft offenses has been quashed. The case raised concerns about law and order versus public order, leading to the court’s decision. This ruling holds immense importance in the realm of preventive detention. Stay informed with the latest legal developments!
Facts
- The petitioner is challenging the detention order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City.
- Petitioner has been detained under the PASA Act on the grounds of involvement in two theft offences, for which he was previously released on bail by the competent Court.
- It is argued that the petitioner’s activities may disturb law and order but do not amount to a breach of public order.
- The advocate suggests that cancellation of bail could have been a less drastic remedy instead of detention.
- The timing of the detention order, being just two days after bail was granted in the second FIR, raises questions on the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.
- The AGP contends that the petitioner’s activities would disturb public order, justifying the detention order.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the alleged anti-social activities of the detenue disturbed public order.
- A mere disturbance of law and order is not enough for preventive detention; it must be a disturbance that affects public order.
- Subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority was not evident before passing the detention order.
- Detenue was released on bail for one FIR before the impugned order of detention was passed for another FIR.
- Serious and aggravated forms of disorder directly impact the community and public interest, not minor breaches of peace.
- Two cases of theft against the detenue do not directly relate to the maintenance of ‘public order’.
- Any contravention of law affects order, but before it can be classified as affecting public order, it must impact the community or the public at large.
- Reference to the case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852] distinguishes between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’.
- In the Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana and Ors. case, the subjective satisfaction for preventive detention can be vitiated if the person is not a menace to society as alleged.
- Simply registering FIRs does not necessarily indicate a breach of ‘public order’, warranting recourse under preventive detention law.
- Instances of quarrels or fights between individuals, even if resulting in disorder, may not amount to public disorder.
- Bail cancellation was an available remedy but not utilized
- Order of detention was directly passed without resorting to bail cancellation
Decision
- The petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed
- The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty
- The rule is made absolute
- Direct service is permitted
Case Title: DHRUV @ BHOPO JAYESHBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/20424/2023
