JIGNESHBHAI SAVJIBHAI MANIYA THRO PIYUSHBHAI SAVJIBHAI MANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/124/2026                          ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 124 of 2026
==========================================================
     JIGNESHBHAI SAVJIBHAI MANIYA THRO PIYUSHBHAI SAVJIBHAI
                             MANIYA
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SWETA P BAROT(10181) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN H RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                          Date : 22/01/2026

                        ORAL ORDER
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)


1.     The detenue herein namely Jigneshbhai Savjibhai
Maniya came to be preventively detained vide the detention
detention order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the District
Magistrate, Bhavnagar, as a bootlegger as de ned under
Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities
Act, 1985 (herein after referred as ‘the Act of 1985).

2.     By way of this petition, the detenue has challenged the
legality and validity of the aforesaid order through his
brother.

3.     This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the respondent-State Authorities.

4.     Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued
that there was no material available with the detention


                              Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/124/2026                       ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026




authority to indicate as to how the public health or public
order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner.
Thus, in absence of any such material on record, the order of
detention ought not have been passed. It is further submitted
by learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned
order is passed without application of mind and prima facie
the order is passed mechanically.


4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted
that the impugned order was executed upon the detenue and
presently he is detained in the Central Jail, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad.


5.     On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present
petition contended that the detenue is habitual o2ender and
his activities a2ected at the society at large. Hence, the
Detaining Authority, considering the antecedents and past
activities of the detenue, has passed the impugned order with
a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area and
lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.


6.     Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the core issue arises as to whether the order of
detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of his
powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable
in law or not?




                            Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/124/2026                          ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026




7.     We have carefully gone through the order passed by the
concerned authority. It appears that the order impugned was
executed upon the detenue and presently he is in Central
Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. In the grounds of detention,
reference of three cases for the o"ences punishable under
Sections 65(A)(A), 65(A)(E), 67(A), 116(B), 98(2) and 81
of the Prohibition Act and Sections 123, 3(5) and 61(2)
of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 registered with
various        police   stations    against   the    detenue         from
05.09.2025 to 05.10.2025 is made out.


7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of
the detenue as a “bootlegger” a2ects adversely or are likely
to a2ect adversely the maintenance of public order as
explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.


8.     Considering the impugned order, it appears that the
provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985 is referred by the
concerned authorities.      Hence, the same is required to be
reproduced. The same reads as under:


       “2(b) "bootlegger" means a person who distills,
       manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells
       or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other
       intoxicant in contravention of any provision of the
       Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and orders
       made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being
       in force or who knowingly expends or applies any money
       or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other
       conveyance or any receptacle or any other material
       whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any
       of the things described above by or through any other


                               Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/124/2026                              ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026




       person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of
       any such thing;”


9.     After consideration of the available material, we are of
the considered view that on the basis of three cases, the
authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction
that the activities of the detenue could be termed to be acting
in a manner ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’.
In our considered opinion, the said o2ences do not have any
bearing on the maintenance of public order. In this regard,
we would like to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and others reported
in AIR 2025 Sc 2868. In para-9 and para-21 of the said
decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
       “9. It is well settled that the provision for preventive
       detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State
       that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an
       individual in anticipation of the commission of further
       o2ence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary
       course of nature. The power of preventive detention nds
       recognition in the Constitution itself, under Article 22(3)(b).
       However, this Court has emphasized in Rekha v. State of
       Tamil Nadu3 that the power of preventive detention is an
       exception to Article 21 and, therefore, must be applied as
       such, as an exception to the main rule and only in rare
       cases.”

       …..

       “21. This Court in SK. Nazneen (supra), had observed that
       the State should move for cancellation of bail of the detenu,
       instead of placing him under the law of preventive detention,
       which is not the appropriate remedy. Similarly, in Ameena
       Begum v. State of Telengana9 , this Court observed :

               “59. … It is pertinent to note that in the three criminal
               proceedings where the detenu had been released on bail,
               no applications for cancellation of bail had been moved by
               the State. In the light of the same, the provisions of the


                                  Page 4 of 6
      R/SCR.A/124/2026                                ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026




                Act, which is an extraordinary statute, should not have
                been resorted to when ordinary criminal law provided
                su2icient means to address the apprehensions leading to
                the impugned detention order. There may have existed
                su2icient grounds to appeal against the bail orders, but
                the circumstances did not warrant the circumvention of
                ordinary criminal procedure to resort to an extraordinary
                measure of the law of preventive detention.”

                60. In Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [Vijay Narain
                Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14 : 1984 SCC (Cri)
                361] , Hon'ble E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as the Chief Justice
                then was) observed : (SCC pp. 35-36, para 32)

                32. … It is well settled that the law of preventive detention
                is a hard law and therefore it should be strictly construed.
                Care should be taken that the liberty of a person is not
                jeopardised unless his case falls squarely within the four
                corners of the relevant law. The law of preventive
                detention should not be used merely to clip the wings of
                an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution. It is
                not intended for the purpose of keeping a man under
                detention when under ordinary criminal law it may not be
                possible to resist the issue of orders of bail, unless the
                material available is such as would satisfy the
                requirements of the legal provisions authorising such
                detention. When a person is enlarged on bail by a
                competent criminal court, great caution should be
                exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of
                preventive detention which is based on the very same
                charge which is to be tried by the criminal court.”
                (Emphasis supplied)”

10.     For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered
opinion that, the material available on record are not
su2icient for holding that the alleged activities of the detenue
have either a2ected adversely or likely to a2ect adversely the
maintenance of public order and therefore, the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be
said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.

11.     Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned dated 31.12.2025 passed by the respondent


                                    Page 5 of 6
        R/SCR.A/124/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026




authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenue to be set
at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service permitted.




                                                                                            (ILESH J. VORA,J)



                                                                                          (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
OMKAR

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/01/2026 14:24:12




                                                       Page 6 of 6