In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the case of quashing the detention order was ruled in favor of the detenue. The Court examined the lack of nexus between the alleged activities and public order disturbance, leading to the decision to quash the order. This ruling has significant implications for cases involving preventive detention measures. Stay tuned for more updates on this landmark legal decision.
Arguments
- The detenue’s advocate argues that the alleged illegal activity does not have any connection to the maintenance of public order.
- The only relevant evidence found is witness statements, FIR registrations, and Panchnama drawn during the investigation.
- The detenue’s actions in relation to criminal cases did not disrupt the societal tempo or threaten the normal lives of the people.
- The advocate raises other grounds for quashing the detention order.
- Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority.
- Sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was supplied to the detenue.
- Indicates that the detenue is in the habit of indulging in activities as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.
- The detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention based on the facts of the case.
- The detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court.
Analysis
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not legal and valid as the alleged offences do not impact public order as required by the Act.
- Other relevant penal laws are sufficient to address the situation.
- The allegations against the detenue are not relevant to bring them within the scope of the Act’s definition.
- There is a lack of specific material showing the detenue poses a danger to public order.
- A person can only be considered within the Act if they pose a significant threat to society and disrupt the social apparatus, causing public order disturbance.
- The Court considered the petitioner’s previous arrest and release on bail in relation to the timing of the detention order.
- Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized that the detaining authority must conduct a meaningful assessment before ordering detention.
- The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted bail by the proper jurisdiction, without the sponsoring authority utilizing the option to cancel the bail as a remedy.
- Citing a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court highlighted that seeking preventive detention should not be the first resort if other remedies like cancellation of bail are available and appropriate.
- Based on the lack of nexus between the FIRs and maintenance of public order, and absence of relevant material, the Court inclined towards allowing the petition.
- The distinction between affecting order and public order was discussed, emphasizing that mere assault or injury to individuals does not necessarily constitute public disorder.
- The Court delineated between minor breaches of peace with local significance and serious disorders affecting the community or public interest, clarifying that the latter falls within the scope of the Preventive Detention Act.
Decision
- Present petition allowed
- Impugned order of detention quashed and set aside
- Direct service permitted
- Detenue to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case
- Rule made absolute accordingly
Case Title: AMRUT @ KALU S/O BHARAT THAKARE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/20939/2023
