Exploring the implications of a detention order under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the Gujarat High Court recently addressed the case involving the detention of an individual following alleged illegal activities. The court examined the grounds on which the detaining authority based their decision, with arguments presented by the detenue’s advocate and the Attorney General of Gujarat. Stay tuned for insights into this significant legal case!
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argued that the detention order was based on a single offense under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
- It was contended that the alleged illegal activity did not relate to public order but rather to a breach of law and order.
- The advocate emphasized that a solitary offense does not meet the criteria under section 2(b) of the Act for detention.
- The petitioner argues that the detenue’s activity did not threaten the normal and routine life of people or disrupt public order.
- The AGP disagrees and claims that there is substantial evidence proving the detenue’s involvement in illegal activities.
- AGP states that the detenue’s behavior aligns with the definition of illegal activity as per the Act.
- The AGP supports the detaining authority’s decision to pass the detention order based on the facts of the case.
Analysis
- Detenue’s actions do not fit the definition of a ‘bootlegger’ under the PASA Act
- Even if the allegations are true, they do not pose a threat to public order
- There may be disorder but not public disorder in this case
- Preventive detention should not be used as a remedy in cases where a detenu is not a menace to society
- Registration of an FIR alone does not necessarily indicate a breach of maintenance of public order
- Relevant material must show that the detenu poses a threat to society and causes disturbance to public order
- Distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is crucial in determining the applicability of preventive detention
- A mere disturbance of law and order, not affecting public order, is not sufficient for preventive detention
- Subjective satisfaction must be arrived at by the detaining authority before passing an order of detention.
- The detenue in this case was granted bail on 25.10.2023 in connection with the FIR, followed by the order of detention on 26.10.2023.
- The detaining authority did not opt for the less drastic remedy of cancelling bail before resorting to detention.
Decision
- The court considered the provisions of the relevant section of the RPC.
- It was observed that direct service is permitted under the order of detention.
- The court ordered that service be carried out straightaway.
Case Title: SAHID MUSTAKIM SHAIKH THROUGH HIS BROTHER SHAIKH MAJID MUSTAKIM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/19989/2023
