In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case challenging the detention order. The court’s decision to quash the detention order has implications for preventive detention cases in the state. Stay tuned to learn more about the details of this ruling and its impact. #DetentionOrder #GujaratHighCourt #LegalVictory
Arguments
- The alleged illegal activity attributed to the detenue does not have any nexus with the maintenance of public order.
- Apart from witness statements and FIR registration, no substantial evidence connects the detenue’s alleged activities with a breach of public order.
- The order of detention is challenged on the grounds that a solitary offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act is insufficient to classify the detenue as per section 2(b) of the Act.
- The petitioner’s advocate argues that the solitary criminal case does not indicate a disruption of societal peace or pose a threat to normal life.
- The petition seeks to quash the detention order issued based on a single offence registered against the detenue.
- Learned AGP supported the detention order passed by the respondent authority.
- Sufficient material and evidence were found against the detenue during the investigation.
- Detenue was found to be in the habit of indulging in activity defined under section 2(b) of the Act.
- Detaining authority was justified in passing the detention order based on the facts of the case.
- The detention order deserves to be upheld by the Court.
Analysis
- Detaining authority can pass order of detention based on a solitary incident if there is justifiable subjective satisfaction that it may disturb public order.
- Allegations against the detenue must indicate a threat or menace to society to justify preventive detention.
- Detaining authority’s conclusion of activity being detrimental to public health must be supported by contemporaneous material, which is lacking in this case.
- Detaining authority acted hastily and mechanically without proper application of mind.
- Detaining authority did not consider less drastic remedy of cancelling bail before resorting to preventive detention.
- Recent Supreme Court decision suggests that preventive detention may not be appropriate if cancellation of bail is a viable alternative.
- Detaining authority failed to prove alleged anti-social activities adversely affect public order
- Merely being a bootlegger does not justify preventive detention
- Order of detention passed the day after petitioner was released on bail
- Selling or possessing liquor does not pose a threat to public order
- Need convincing reasons and material to prove adverse impact on public order
- Emphasis on ‘public order’ over ‘law and order’
- Detention orders quashed as no evidence of affecting public order
- Latest Supreme Court decision supports quashing of detention orders
- Registration of FIR/s alone cannot be linked to breach of public order
- The authority cannot rely solely on FIR/s for invoking power under Section 3(2) of the Act
- The lack of relevant and cogent material makes the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority questionable
- The detaining authority’s conclusion was not supported by any material on record
Decision
- The present petition has been allowed.
- The impugned order of detention dated 13.11.2023 has been quashed and set aside.
- The rule has been made absolute accordingly.
- The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- Direct service is permitted.
Case Title: MOHD. SOHEL @ SHAHRUKH @ BHATHENA S/O MOHD. AIYUB MALBARI THRU MOTHER SAHERABANU MOHD.AIYUB MALBARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/21168/2023
