VISHALBHAI @D BHARATBHAI CHAUHAN THRO PUNAMBEN BHARATBHAI CHAUHANversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE

     R/SCR.A/17513/2025                           ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 17513 of 2025

==========================================================
     VISHALBHAI @D BHARATBHAI CHAUHAN THRO PUNAMBEN
                    BHARATBHAI CHAUHAN
                           Versus
                 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. RESHMA G RAUMA (10143) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. VINAY B. VISHEN, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                            Date : 20/01/2026

                          ORAL ORDER
           (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)


1.      The       detenue   herein      namely   Vishalbhai         @       D
Bharatbhai Chauhan came to be preventively detained vide
the detention order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the
District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, as a dangerous person as
defined under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-
social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred as ‘the Act of
1985).


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



                                  Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/17513/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




3.      This Court has heard learned advocate 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 petitioner
and presently he is detained in the Central Jail, Rajkot.


5.      On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present
petition contended that the detenue is habitual offender and
his activities affected 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
Bhavnagar and lastly prayed to dismiss the present
petition.

                                    Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/17513/2025                         ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




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 detained in Central Jail, Rajkot. In the grounds of
detention, reference of three criminal cases for the offences
punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 54
351(3), 140(3), 118(2) and 352 of the BNS and under
Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act registered with
various         Police    Station   against   the   detenue         from
17.08.2024 to 06.07.2025 is made out.


7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities
of the detenue as a “dangerous person” affects adversely or
are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order
as explained under the provisions of the the Act of 1985.
Undisputedly, in the aforesaid alleged offences, the detenue
was granted bail by the concerned court.


8.      Considering the impugned order, it appears that the

                                Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/17513/2025                         ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




provisions of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985 is referred by
the concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to
be reproduced. The same reads as under:


        “(c) "dangerous person" means a person, who either by
        himself or as a member or leader of a gang, during a period
        of three successive years, habitually commits, or attempts to
        commit or abets the commission of any of the offences
        punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter VIII or Chapter
        XVI (except section 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376,
        376A, 376B, 3376C, 376D, or 377) or Chapter XVII or
        Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences
        punishable under chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959;”


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 offences 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
        offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary


                                Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/17513/2025                             ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




   course of nature. The power of preventive detention finds
   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 Act, which is an extraordinary
           statute, should not have been resorted to when
           ordinary criminal law provided sufficient means to
           address the apprehensions leading to the impugned
           detention order. There may have existed sufficient
           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


                             Page 5 of 6
        R/SCR.A/17513/2025                                                                       ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




                        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 reasons recorded, we are of the considered
 opinion that, the material on record are not sufficient for
 holding that the alleged activities of the detenue have either
 affected               adversely                 or        likely           to        affect            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 22.12.2025 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.


                                                                                                     (ILESH J. VORA,J)


                                                                                                 (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
 Mehul Desai
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MEHULKUMAR BHIMABHAI DESAI(HCD0075), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/01/2026 14:36:13




                                                              Page 6 of 6