NARENDRA KUMAR @ JAIWANT BHIMRAO TARNEKAR THRO HIRABEN BHIMRAO TARNEKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/17156/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 17156 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA                                  Sd/-

and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS                                        Sd/-
==========================================================
              Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No

==========================================================
NARENDRA KUMAR @ JAIWANT BHIMRAO TARNEKAR THRO HIRABEN
                  BHIMRAO TARNEKAR
                        Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARATKUMAR H OZA(12150) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR B OZA(11654) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                                 Date : 13/01/2026

                     ORAL JUDGMENT
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)


1.        The     detenue   herein     namely        Narendra       Kumar            @
Jaiwant          Bhimrao        Tarnekar       came    to   be     preventively
detained           vide   the    detention         detention     order         dated
23.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Kheda-
Nadiad, 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).



                                     Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/17156/2025                      JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




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

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
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 District Jail, Bhavnagar.


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 of
Nadiad and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.


                               Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/17156/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




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?


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 District
Jail, Bhavnagar. In the grounds of detention, reference of
two cases for the o%ences punishable under Sections
65(E),         98(2)      and   81   of     the    Prohibition      Act      and
registered with Nadiad Town police station against the
detenue from 24.03.2025 to 13.05.2025 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

                                     Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/17156/2025                           JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




          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
          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 two                   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.”

         …..



                                 Page 4 of 6
  R/SCR.A/17156/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




      “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 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



                                  Page 5 of 6
    R/SCR.A/17156/2025                                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




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 23.06.2025 passed by the respondent
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.



                                                                                                  Sd/-
                                                                                  (N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)



                                                                                                            Sd/-
                                                                                                  (D. M. VYAS, 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 13/01/2026 18:57:46




                                                       Page 6 of 6