SIRAJBHAI @ MONI MUSTAKBHAI ANSARI THRO. RAJPUT SAROJ D/O KALPNATHSINGHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/2328/2026                               ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2328 of 2026

==========================================================
 SIRAJBHAI @ MONI MUSTAKBHAI ANSARI THRO. RAJPUT SAROJ D/O
                      KALPNATHSINGH
                           Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTH D PATEL(9754) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                            Date : 09/03/2026

                             ORAL ORDER

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

1.   The       petitioner   herein    came      to    be     preventively
     detained vide the detention order dated 04.02.2026
     passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City,
     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 petitioner has challenged
     the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3.   This Court has heard learned counsel appearing for
     the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
     for the respective parties.


                                Page 1 of 7
     R/SCR.A/2328/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026




4.   Learned advocate for the detenue submits 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 o3ence cannot be said to have
     either a3ected adversely or likely to a3ect 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 o3ences alleged to
     have been committed by the detunue 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.

5.   On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing
     the      application    contended          that,    the     detenue           is
     habitual o3ender and his activities a3ected at the
     society at large. In such set of circumstances, 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 Ahmedabad.

6.   Having          considered   the       facts       as   well      as         the
     submissions made by the respective parties, the issue
     arise as to whether the order of detention passed by


                                  Page 2 of 7
     R/SCR.A/2328/2026                        ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026




     the Detaining Authority in exercise of his powers
     under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable
     in law?
7.   The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner
     and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention,
     a reference of two criminal cases (i) for the o3ence
     under Sections 65(A)(A) and 116(B) of Prohibition Act
     with Odhav Police Station and for the o3ence under
     Sections 65(A)(A), 98(2), 81, 116(B) of Prohibition Act
     with DCB Police Station,             Ahmedabad registered
     against the petitioner under the Prohibition Law was
     made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the
     detenue as a “bootlegger” a3ects adversely or are
     likely to a3ect adversely the maintenance of public
     order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.
     Admittedly, in said o3ences, the petitioner was
     granted bail.

8.   After careful consideration of the material, we are of
     the considered view that on the basis of aforesaid two
     prohibition 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
     opinion, the said two o3ences do not have any bearing
     on the maintenance of public order. In this connection,
     we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the


                            Page 3 of 7
R/SCR.A/2328/2026                                ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026




case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner
of Police, Ahmedabad, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322,
wherein, the detention order was made on the basis
of the registration of the two prohibition o3ences. The
Apex Court after referring the case of Pushkar
Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 10,
held and observed that mere disturbance of law and
order        leading       to   detention     order    is    thus          not
necessarily su>cient for action under preventive
detention Act.          Paras-17 & 18 are relevant to refer,
which read thus:

   “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 speci/c persons does not lead to
                    public disorder. When two people quarrel
                    and /ght and assault each other inside a
                    house or in a street, it may be said that
                    there is disorder but not public disorder.

                                Page 4 of 7
R/SCR.A/2328/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026




                    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 a2ects
                    order but before it can be said to a2ect
                    public order, it must a2ect 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      a2ect            the
                    community or injure the public interest
                    and the relatively minor breaches of
                    peace of a purely local signi/cance which
                    primarily injure speci/c individuals and
                    only in a secondary sense public interest.
                    A mere disturbance of law and order
                    leading to disorder is thus not necessarily
                    su4cient for action under the Preventive
                    Detention Act but a disturbance which will
                    a2ect 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


                               Page 5 of 7
R/SCR.A/2328/2026                              ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026




   alleged anti- social activities of               the petitioner
   adversely a2ect or are likely to a2ect adversely the
   maintenance of public 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 o2ences committed by
   him but, surely, the acts constituting the o2ences
   cannot be said to have a2ected 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 a2ect adversely or are
   likely to a2ect adversely the maintenance of public
   order We have carefully considered the o2ences
   alleged against the petitioner in the order of
   detention and also the allegations made by the
   witnesses and, in our opinion, these o2ences 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


                            Page 6 of 7
       R/SCR.A/2328/2026                                                               ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026




            upheld.”

9.      For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered
        opinion that, the material on record are not su>cient
        for holding that the alleged activities of the detenue
        have either a3ected adversely or likely to a3ect
        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.

10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
        impugned                    dated              04.02.2026                    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.


                                                                                              (ILESH J. VORA,J)



                                                                                           (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/03/2026 13:30:42




                                                        Page 7 of 7