The Gujarat High Court recently made a significant decision regarding the quashing of a detention order issued by the Police Commissioner of Vadodara City. The Court emphasized the importance of justifying deprivation of personal liberty under the law before resorting to preventive detention. The detention order lacked proper subjective satisfaction and did not demonstrate a real threat to public order by the petitioner. Find out more about this case and the Court’s considerations in the detailed summary.
Arguments
- The order of detention issued by the Police Commissioner of Vadodara City is being challenged by the petitioner.
- The petitioner’s advocate argues that the registration of offenses under the Indian Penal Code does not automatically fit the detenue within the scope of the Act’s definition of a ‘dangerous person.’
- It is contended that the alleged illegal activities associated with the petitioner do not relate to public order but rather pertain to a breach of law and order.
- Apart from witness statements, FIR registrations, and investigation reports, there is a lack of substantial evidence linking the detenue’s purported anti-social behavior to a threat to public order.
- The offences in question relate to bodily injuries against individuals and do not amount to a breach of public order.
- The detaining authority had enough evidence to issue the detention order, including the petitioner’s confession to the offenses and other supporting evidence like panchnama drawing that led to the discovery of stolen vehicles.
- The petitioner’s activities in the criminal cases did not disrupt the even tempo of society or threaten normal life, and the FIRs against the petitioner are under Chapters XVI and XVII of the IPC, indicating ‘dangerous person’ aspects.
- The detaining authority could have chosen to revoke the petitioner’s bail instead of resorting to detention.
Analysis
- The detaining authority did not consider the option of cancellation of bail before resorting to preventive detention.
- The Court found that the detention order lacked application of mind regarding the efficacy of cancelling bail to prevent the alleged illegal activities.
- Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Court held that ordinary criminal laws are sufficient to handle the offenses for which the petitioner was granted bail.
- The Court emphasized that preventive detention should be reserved for cases where the individual poses a real threat to public order, which was not demonstrated in this case.
- It was suggested that if the petitioner truly posed a danger to society, efforts should be made to cancel his bail or appeal to a higher court, rather than resorting to preventive detention.
- The Court stressed the importance of justifying deprivation of personal liberty under the law before resorting to preventive detention.
- The expression ‘public order’ does not encompass every kind of infraction of order, but only certain categories.
- Not every act of assault or injury to specific persons leads to public disorder.
- Disorder arising from a quarrel or fight between two people, either inside a house or on a street, does not amount to public disorder.
- A contravention of any law affects order, but to affect public order, it must impact the community or the public at large.
- Reference is made to the case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852] for a clear distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order.’
- The detaining authority passed the order of detention on the same day the petitioner was released on regular bail
- Simplicitor registration of FIR/s does not have a nexus with the breach of public order
- No other relevant or cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act
- The detaining authority did not apply proper subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention
Decision
- The present petition has been allowed.
- The impugned order of detention dated 09.10.2023 has been quashed and set aside.
- The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- Direct service is permitted.
Case Title: HUSEN @ CHULBUL KADARMIYA SUNNI THROUGH HUSNA HUSEN @ CHULBUL KADARMIYA SUNNI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/21610/2023
