RAKESH SATBIRSINGH JAT (LAMBA) THRO SINDHU MAJINDERSINGH AKA S/O SINDHU JASBIRSINGHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/10132/2026                        ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10132 of 2026
=================================================
   RAKESH SATBIRSINGH JAT (LAMBA) THRO SINDHU
   MAJINDERSINGH AKA S/O SINDHU JASBIRSINGH
                       Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=================================================
Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MANAN MAHETA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                          Date : 29/07/2026

                               ORDER

        (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)

1.      The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained

        vide the detention order dated 11.07.2026 passed by

        the respondent authority as a “bootlegger” as defined

        under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-

        social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as “the

        Act of 1985”).

2.      By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged

        the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.


                               Page 1 of 8
     R/SCR.A/10132/2026                          ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




3.      This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing

        for the respective parties.

4.      Learned advocate for the detenu submits criminal

        cases have been registered against the detenu under

        the Prohibition Act and has been condemned as a

        bootlegger. Learned advocate for the detenu has

        submitted that without any evidence, the case has

        been registered against the detenu and there is no case

        of any public disorder. Learned advocate for the detenu

        has relied on the judgments in the case of Piyush

        Kantilal          Mehta   vs.    Commissioner     of     Police,

        Ahmedabad (City) reported in AIR 1989 SC 491 and

        in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of

        Bengal, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 10.

5.      Learned advocate for the detenu submitted that the

        grounds of detention has no nexus to the “public

        order”, but is a purely a matter of law and order, as

        registration of the offence cannot be said to have either

        affected adversely or likely to affect adverse the

        maintenance of public order as contemplated under



                                   Page 2 of 8
     R/SCR.A/10132/2026                       ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




        the explanation sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act

        of 1985 and therefore, where the offences alleged to

        have been committed by the detenu have no bearing

        on the question of maintenance of public order and his

        activities could be said to be a prejudicial only to the

        maintenance of law and order and not prejudicial to

        the maintenance of public order, then the detention

        order becomes invalid.

6.      On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposing

        the application contended that the detenu is a habitual

        offender and his activities affects the society at large.

        In such set of circumstances, the detaining authority,

        considering the antecedents and past activities of the

        detenu, has passed the impugned order with a view to

        prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to

        the maintenance of public order in the area of

        Vadodara.

7.      Having considered the facts as well as the submissions

        made by the respective parties, the issue arises for

        consideration as to whether the order of detention



                              Page 3 of 8
     R/SCR.A/10132/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




        passed by the detaining authority in exercise of the

        powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is

        sustainable in law?

8.      The order impugned was executed upon the detenu. In

        the grounds of detention, a reference of criminal case

        i.e. for the offence under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83,

        98(2) and 116(b) of Gujarat Prohibition Act and under

        Sections 336(2)(3) and 340(2) of BNS with Chhani

        Police Station was made and further it is alleged that

        the activities of the detenu as a “bootlegger” affects

        adversely         or   are   likely        to   affect   adversely            the

        maintenance of ‘public order’ as explained under

        Section 3 of the Act of 1985.

9.      After careful consideration of the material, we are of

        the considered view that on the basis of the said

        prohibition cases, the authority has wrongly arrived at

        the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the

        detenu could be termed to be acting in a manner

        ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’. In our

        opinion, the said offences do not have any bearing on



                                     Page 4 of 8
R/SCR.A/10132/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




   the maintenance of public order. In this connection, we

   may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

   in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra), wherein

   the detention order was made on the basis of the

   registration of the two prohibition offences. The

   Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring the case of

   Pushkar Mukherjee (supra), held and observed that

   mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention

   order is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under

   preventive detention Act. Paras-17 & 18 are relevant

   to refer, which read thus:-

           “17. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of
           this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West
           Bengal, where the distinction between `law and order'
           and `public order' has been clearly laid down.
           Ramaswami, J. speaking for the Court observed as
           follows:

                     10. "Does the expression `public order'
                     take in every kind of infraction of order or
                     only some categories thereof? It is manifest
                     that every act of assault or injury to specific
                     persons does not lead to public disorder.
                     When two people quarrel and fight and
                     assault each other inside a house or in a
                     street, it may be said that there is disorder
                     but not public disorder. Such cases are
                     dealt with under the powers vested in the
                     executive authorities under the provisions



                                   Page 5 of 8
R/SCR.A/10132/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




                     of ordinary criminal law but the culprits
                     cannot be detained on the ground that they
                     were     disturbing    public    order.   The
                     contravention of any law always affects
                     order but before it can be said to affect
                     public order, it must affect the community
                     or the public at large. In this connection we
                     must draw a line of demarcation between
                     serious and aggravated forms of disorder
                     which directly affect the community or
                     injure the public interest and the relatively
                     minor breaches of peace of a purely local
                     significance which primarily injure specific
                     individuals and only in a secondary sense
                     public interest. A mere disturbance of law
                     and order leading to disorder is thus not
                     necessarily sufficient for action under the
                     Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance
                     which will affect public order comes within
                     the scope of the Act."

           18. In the instant case, the detaining authority, in our
           opinion, has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti-
           social activities of the petitioner adversely affect or are
           likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public
           order. It is true some incidents of beating by the
           petitioner had taken place, as alleged by the witnesses.
           But, such incidents, in our view, do not have any
           bearing on the maintenance of public order. The
           petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences
           committed by him but, surely, the acts constituting the
           offences cannot be said to have affected the even tempo
           of the life of the community. It may be that the petitioner
           is a bootlegger within the meaning of section 2(b) of the
           Act, but merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be
           preventively detained under the provisions of the Act
           unless, as laid down in sub-section (4) of section 3 of
           the Act, his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or
           are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public
           order We have carefully considered the offences alleged
           against the petitioner in the order of detention and also


                                  Page 6 of 8
      R/SCR.A/10132/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




                 the allegations made by the witnesses and, in our
                 opinion, these offences or the allegations cannot be said
                 to have created any feeling of insecurity or panic or
                 terror among the members of the public of the area in
                 question giving rise to the question of maintenance of
                 public order. The order of detention cannot, therefore, be
                 upheld.”

10.      We are of the considered opinion that the material on

         record are not sufficient for holding that the alleged

         activities of the detenu alleging him as a bootlegger

         have either affected adversely or likely to affect

         adversely the maintenance of public order, we are of a

         considered view that the registration of cases against

         the present detenu under Prohibition Act would not

         have any effect on public order, unless it is proved by

         way of material on record that the activity of detenu

         has created tension in the area and has raised panic to

         adversely affect the public order. Therefore, it can be

         concluded that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by

         the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid

         and in accordance with law.

11.      Accordingly,       the    petition        is   allowed.     The      order

         impugned dated 11.07.2026 passed by the respondent



                                     Page 7 of 8
      R/SCR.A/10132/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




          authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenu to

          be set at liberty forthwith, if is not required in any

          other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct

          service is permitted.




                                                                                        (GITA GOPI,J)



                                                                               (L. S. PIRZADA, J)
DIKSHA


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: DIKSHA HARISH GUSAIN(HC02363), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/07/2026 14:01:22




                                                   Page 8 of 8