In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, a detention order based on alleged offenses under the Prohibition Act has been quashed. The case saw the detenue challenging the order on grounds of lacking sufficient evidence to justify preventive detention. The judgment highlights the importance of meeting specific criteria for preventive measures. This decision holds implications for future cases involving similar circumstances.
Arguments
- Learned advocate for the detenue argues that the alleged illegal activity has no connection to public order but may be a breach of law and order.
- Learned AGP for the respondent State supports the detention order, stating that sufficient material was found during investigation to justify it.
- The detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction does not seem to be legal, valid, or in accordance with the law based on the records.
Analysis
- The petition is filed seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the detention order dated 28.10.2023 by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad.
- The petitioner challenges the detention order which was based on four offences registered against the petitioner under the Prohibition Act.
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the mere registration of offences under the Prohibition Act does not automatically classify the detenue as a ‘bootlegger’ as defined in section 2(b) of the Act.
- The advocate contends that the order of detention should be quashed and set aside as the offences alone do not meet the criteria for detention under section 2(b) of the Act.
- The detaining authority lacks material or data to support the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s activities are harming public health.
- Alleged offenses in the FIR do not affect public order as required by the Act; other penal laws can address the situation adequately.
- Without substantial evidence that the petitioner poses a serious threat to society and disrupts public order, they cannot be detained under the Act.
- The detaining authority did not properly consider the option of canceling the petitioner’s bail as an alternative to preventive detention.
- The lack of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report and limited material beyond witness statements, FIR registrations, and panchnama weakens the case against the petitioner.
- General statements without concrete evidence do not prove that the petitioner’s actions endanger public order.
- Subjective satisfaction vitiated
- Recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors.
- Observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 19
- Content of para 19 mentioned
- No live link between the first two offences as they were committed on different dates
- Detention order passed immediately after petitioner was granted regular bail for the fourth offence, indicating a mechanical exercise of application of mind
Decision
- The petition is allowed
- Registration of FIR alone does not breach maintenance of public order
- No other relevant material for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act
- Detention order dated 28.10.2023 quashed and set aside
- Detenue to be set at liberty immediately if not required in any other case
Case Title: PADMABEN @ PINKY NIRAJKUMAR RATHOD THROUGH SIMRAN NIRAJKUMAR RATHOD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Case Number: R/SCA/582/2024
