In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order of Jaykumar Jitubhai Patel. The court found that the detaining authority’s decision was not legally valid, leading to the detenue being directed to be set at liberty. This verdict emphasizes the importance of upholding human rights and justice in legal proceedings.
Facts
- The petitioner, Jaykumar Jitubhai Patel, has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order dated 09.11.2023
- The detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985
- The petitioner was preventively detained as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985
- The petitioner is currently in jail following the execution of the impugned order
Issue
- The issue to be determined is the sustainability of the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985.
- The facts and submissions of both parties have been considered in reaching this issue.
- The key question is whether the detention order is legally sound.
Arguments
- 1.1
- 1.2
- 1.3
- State Counsel opposes the application, labeling the detenue as a habitual offender.
- State Counsel argues that the detenue’s activities have a broad impact on society.
- Detaining Authority’s decision to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Vadodara is based on his antecedents and past activities.
Analysis
- The petitioner was granted bail in all the mentioned offences.
- The grounds of detention mentioned two criminal cases against the petitioner for theft offenses.
- The detention was based on the allegation that the petitioner’s activities as a ‘dangerous person’ threatened public order, but incidents of beating by the petitioner were not relevant to public order maintenance.
- The court found that the authority wrongly concluded the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to public order based on the mentioned offenses.
- The court determined that the offenses in question did not impact public order maintenance.
- The detaining authority failed to substantiate that the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
- Detention orders should be based on serious and aggravated forms of disorder that directly affect the community or injure the public interest, rather than minor breaches of peace with purely local significance.
- Contravention of any law affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act; there must be a disturbance that affects public order.
- The petitioner cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless his activities as a bootlegger adversely affect or are likely to affect public order.
- The petitioner is considered a bootlegger as per the definition in section 2(b) of the Act.
- Being a bootlegger does not automatically lead to preventive detention, there must be evidence of adverse effect on public order.
- The material on record is not sufficient to prove that the detenue’s activities have affected or likely to affect public order negatively.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not legal, valid, and in accordance with the law based on the evidence presented.
- The offenses alleged and the witness statements do not indicate any feeling of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public in the area, which is necessary for the maintenance of public order.
Decision
- The order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the respondent authority has been quashed.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.
- Direct service is permitted.
- The Rule is made absolute accordingly.
- The petition stands allowed as per the judgement.
Case Title: JAYKUMAR JITUBHAI PATEL THROUGH PATEL GORDHANBHAI AMICHANDBHAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Case Number: R/SCR.A/6554/2024
