SMIT @SUMIT SATISHBHAI DARJI THRO RABARI KRISHNA KHODABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/1966/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1966 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting                 Yes         No

==========================================================
SMIT @SUMIT SATISHBHAI DARJI THRO RABARI KRISHNA KHODABHAI
                           Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
O I PATHAN(7684) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                              Date : 02/03/2026

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


1.       The detenue herein namely Smit@Sumit Satishbhai
Darji came to be preventively detained vide the detention
order         dated      01/02/2026        passed         by   the       Police
Commissioner, Vadodara, as a immoral tra ic o ender
de ned under Section 2(g) 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 friend, the detenue


                                  Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/1966/2026                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.


3.       Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.


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 Rajkot Central Jail.


5.       On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present
petition contended that the detenue is habitual o ender and
his activities a ected 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
Vadodara and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.


6.       Having considered the facts as well as the submissions


                              Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/1966/2026                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




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 Rajkot
Central Jail. In the grounds of detention, reference of two
cases for the o#ences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and
5 of the Immoral Tra#ick (Prohibition) Act and Sections
54, 114 and 188 of the IPC                  registered with various
police stations against the detenue from 19/10/2023 to
17/12/2025 is made out.


7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of
the detenue as a “immoral tra ic o ender” a ects adversely
or are likely to a ect adversely the maintenance of public
order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.
Undisputedly, in the aforesaid alleged o ences, the petitioner
was granted regular bail by the concerned court.


8.       Considering the impugned order, it appears that the
provisions of Section 2(g) 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(g) "immoral tra ic o ender "means a person who


                              Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/1966/2026                        JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




         habitually commits or abets the commission of any
         o ence under the Suppression of Immoral Tra ic in
         Women and Girls Act, 1956;”


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 o ences 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 o ence(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


                               Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/1966/2026                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




    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
            su icient means to address the apprehensions
            leading to the impugned detention order. There
            may have existed su icient 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)”


                             Page 5 of 6
     R/SCR.A/1966/2026                                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




10.       For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered
opinion that, the material available on record are not
su icient for holding that the alleged activities of the detenue
have either a ected adversely or likely to a ect 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 01/02/2026 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.




                                                                     (N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)


                                                                                      (D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: ILA PRAFULKUMAR PATEL(HC00194), Principal Pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/03/2026 11:28:44




                                                    Page 6 of 6