In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order in the case of a Prohibition Act offense has been quashed. The judgment, which impacts the liberty of individuals involved in the matter, sets a precedent for future similar cases. Stay tuned to understand the details and reasoning behind this decision.
Facts
- The order of detention has been challenged in this petition
- The registration of a solitary offence under the Prohibition Act does not automatically bring the case within the definition under section 2(b) of the Act
- It is argued that this solitary offence is not sufficient to warrant detention under the Act
Arguments
- Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation.
- The material supplied to the detenue indicates that the detenue is habitually involved in activities defined under section 2(b) of the Act.
- The detaining authority has passed the order of detention based on the facts of the case, and it is argued that the detention order should be upheld by the Court.
Analysis
- The detaining authority did not show how the actions of the detenue were related to public order or could cause public disturbance.
- The detention orders against the detenus are not justified as they do not pose a threat to public order.
- The court decided to quash and set aside the detention orders in each case.
- The registration of a case under the Prohibition Act against the petitioner did not impact public order.
- The Detaining Authority did not consider the option of cancelling the petitioner’s bail.
- The State could have prevented further offenses by filing a cancellation of bail application.
- The fact that the petitioner was out on regular bail was not considered in the detention order.
- The Detaining Authority did not explore the option of cancelling bail as a way to control the petitioner’s activities.
- The grounds of detention were based on a single FIR, which did not prove a threat to public order.
- The detaining authority failed to show how the petitioner’s actions could adversely affect public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was considered by the court to be questionable as there was no contemporaneous material supporting the conclusion.
- The court referred to a previous judgment to highlight that a preventive detention order can be based on a solitary incident or offense if there is justifiable subjective satisfaction on objective material.
- The court emphasized the need for convincing reasons and justifiable material to prove that the impugned activity is likely to cause adverse effects on public order.
- The court noted that the mere selling or possession of Indian made foreign liquor may not inherently cause harm or danger to public order.
- The absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report on record was also highlighted as a deficiency in the case.
- The court cited relevant Supreme Court decisions to emphasize the importance of proper reasoning and material in preventive detention cases.
- The alleged offences committed by the petitioner did not affect the even tempo of the life of the community or public health.
- Being a ‘bootlegger’ does not automatically warrant preventive detention unless it adversely affects or is likely to affect public order.
- The detaining authority acted hastily and mechanically by passing the order of detention immediately after the petitioner was granted regular bail.
- The detaining authority did not show subjective satisfaction through proper application of mind in arriving at the decision for preventive detention.
Decision
- The court quashed the order of detention regarding the co-detenue.
- The registration of FIRs alone cannot be connected to the breach of maintenance of public order.
- No relevant material existed for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act.
- The petition was allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 09.11.2023 was quashed and set aside.
- The detenue is to be set at liberty immediately if not required in any other case.
- Direct service is permitted.
- Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Case Title: SHAILESH AMBALAL MAHIDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/20224/2023
