In a recent landmark decision by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 was quashed. This ruling pertains to a case involving the detenue and the state authorities. Dive into the details of this crucial judgment and its implications in our blog post!
Facts
- Sufficient material and evidence found during investigation
- Evidence indicates detenue’s habit of engaging in defined activity under section 2(b) of the Act
- Detaining authority justified in passing the detention order
- Detention order deemed deserving of upholding by the Court
Issue
- The petition challenges the detention order dated 09.11.2023, placing the petitioner under preventive detention as a ‘bootlegger’ based on a solitary offence.
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the solitary offence under the Prohibition Act does not meet the criteria under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
- It is argued that the alleged illegal activity does not have any connection to the maintenance of public order.
- Apart from witness statements, FIRs, and Panchnama, there is no substantial evidence linking the detenue’s activities to a breach of public order.
- The advocate contends that the solitary criminal case involving the detenue did not disrupt the normal life or pose a threat to public order.
Analysis
- The Court analyzed the detention order in light of the petitioner being granted regular bail by a competent court.
- Emphasis was placed on the necessity for activities of the petitioner to affect public order to justify preventive detention.
- It was noted that a single incident or instance of offense may warrant preventive detention if it is likely to disturb public order.
- The Court cited a recent Supreme Court decision to support its view on quashing the detention orders in this case.
- The analysis highlighted the need for the Detaining Authority to consider all factors, including the effectiveness of cancelling bail, before resorting to preventive detention.
- The judgment emphasized that while the petitioner may face punishment for offenses, they should not be deemed to have significantly disrupted public health or community life.
- A balanced approach was taken, acknowledging the possibility of preventive detention based on a singular incident if it poses a threat to public order.
- The detention order in question was evaluated based on a solitary FIR, indicating the need for a justifiable subjective satisfaction of a potential disturbance to public order.
- Absence of material on record led to the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction being vitiated.
- Court references observations made in the case of Sohanlal Surjaram Visnoi.
- Observations from the case of Raju Manubhai Lalu Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. are highlighted.
- Reference to the observations in the case of Vasava Umeshbhai Laxmanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. made by the Supreme Court.
- The detaining authority’s conclusion about the petitioner’s activities being detrimental to public health lacks supporting material.
- Lack of contemporaneous evidence or FSL report to support the detaining authority’s conclusions.
- The Court’s opinion on the Detaining Authority not considering the option of cancelling bail.
- Subjective satisfaction deemed vitiated as per the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana and Ors.
- The detaining authority acted hastily and mechanically in issuing the detention order immediately after the petitioner was granted regular bail.
- The Court found that the detaining authority did not subjectively apply their mind to arrive at a satisfaction before issuing the order.
- The Court criticized the detaining authority for lack of proper consideration and evaluation before detaining the petitioner.
Decision
- The present petition has been allowed and the order of detention dated 09.11.2023 has been quashed and set aside.
- Direct service is permitted.
- In a previous judgment dated 08.05.2024, the order of detention regarding a co-detenue was also quashed.
- Registration of FIRs alone does not establish a connection with the breach of public order, rendering the invocation of power under section 3(2) of the Act unjustified.
- There is no other relevant material to support the detention under the Act.
- The detenue is to be released immediately unless required in another case.
Case Title: MUKESH @ MUKI BRIJLAL UDASI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/20414/2023
