DINESHSINGH JALAMSINGH RAVNA RAJPUTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/10615/2026                         ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10615 of 2026

==========================================================
                  DINESHSINGH JALAMSINGH RAVNA RAJPUT
                                  Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATYAJIT S SONAGARA(12218) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK 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 23.4.2026 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.


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



                                Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/10615/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




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
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.


7.      Having considered the facts as well as the submissions


                                         Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/10615/2026                         ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




made by the respective parties, the issue arises for consideration
as to whether the order of detention 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 Section 65(a), 65(e), 116B, 81, 83, 98(2) of the
Prohibition Act and Sections 3, 181, 192, 177 of the MV Act with
Tharad Police Station were 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 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:-



                              Page 3 of 6
R/SCR.A/10615/2026                           ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




   “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 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

                            Page 4 of 6
      R/SCR.A/10615/2026                         ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




         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 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


                                Page 5 of 6
         R/SCR.A/10615/2026                                                           ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




   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 23.4.2026 passed by the respondent 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)
   Maulik


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/07/2026 14:46:54




                                                        Page 6 of 6