In a significant development, the Gujarat High Court has delivered a crucial legal judgment regarding the quashing of a detention order issued by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad. The detenue, representing the interests of justice and fundamental rights, successfully challenged the detention order through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This case underscores the pivotal role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary actions of law enforcement authorities.
Facts
- The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat (sic-Ahmedabad), Annexure-A.
- The petitioner has requested for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or habeas corpus to set aside the said order and release the detenu.
- The relief sought includes setting aside the order of detention and directing the respondents to release the detenu immediately.
- The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments
- The petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad.
- The petitioner is detained as a ‘bootlegger’ under the Prohibition Act based on two registered offences.
- The petitioner argues that the offences themselves do not classify him as a ‘bootlegger’ under the Act.
- The illegal activity alleged lacks a nexus with public order and pertains more to breach of law and order.
- Apart from witness statements, FIRs, and Panchanama, there is no substantial evidence linking the detenue’s activities to public order disturbance.
- The petitioner highlights the lack of a direct link between the two offenses committed in separate years.
- It is contended that the detenue’s actions did not cause a significant threat to society or disrupt normal life on a large scale.
- Learned AGP supported the detention order passed by the authority
- Material and evidence found during investigation indicates detenue’s habit of illegal activity
- Detaining authority’s order of detention upheld
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority found to be illegal and not in accordance with law
- Offenses alleged in FIRs not related to public order as required under the Act
- Court found other penal laws sufficient to handle the situation
- Allegations against detenue not relevant for the purpose of Act
- Material should show detenue poses a threat to society
- Detenue was granted regular bail by competent court
- Detention order did not consider canceling bail as an alternative
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority vitiated
- Recent Supreme Court decision states detention not proper remedy in such cases
- State has the option to seek cancellation of bail or appeal to a higher court if detenue is a menace to society
Analysis
- The Court noted that there is no direct connection between the two offenses for which the petitioner was arrested and enlarged on different dates.
- The detaining authority concluded that the petitioner’s activities were detrimental to public health, constituting a breach in public order.
- However, the Court highlighted the lack of contemporaneous material or evidence on record to support the detaining authority’s conclusion.
- Specifically, there is no evidence presented, such as an FSL report, to prove that the sale of liquor by the petitioner had led to disturbances in society or damage to public health.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated due to lack of material on record.
- The court has quashed the order of detention for the co-detenue in a previous case.
- Merely registering an FIR does not establish a nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order, rendering the authority unable to invoke power under section 3(2) of the Act.
- The absence of any relevant and cogent material prohibits the detaining authority from using the Act.
Decision
- Direct service is permitted.
- The detenue must be set at liberty immediately if not needed in any other case.
- The petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 04.12.2023 is quashed and set aside.
- Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Case Title: VICKY LAXMANBHAI PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/21556/2023
