ANILBHAI PRAVINBHAI JANI THRO.PARTH S/O. PRAVINBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/SCR.A/3077/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3077 of 2026

==========================================================
     ANILBHAI PRAVINBHAI JANI THRO.PARTH S/O. PRAVINBHAI PATEL
                                Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.ARVINDKUMAR H SHARMA(17620) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MEGHNA CHITALIYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                               Date : 23/03/2026

                             ORAL ORDER
              (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1.      The petitioner detenue herein came to be preventively
detained vide the detention order dated 21.02.2026 passed
by the respondent – authority as a cyber offender as defined
under Section 2(ba) 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.


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



                                    Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/3077/2026                     ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




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 Special Jail at Bhuj.


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
Surat 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


                            Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/3077/2026                      ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




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 Special Jail, Bhuj. In the grounds of detention, reference
of one criminal case for the offences punishable under the
provisions of BNS and under Sections 66(d) of the IT Act
registered with Udhna Police Station against the detenue.


7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities
of the detenue as a “cyber offender” affects adversely or are
likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as
explained under the provisions of the the Act of 1985.


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


       “(ba) “cyber offender” means a person who commits or
       attempts to commit or abets the commission of offence
       punishable under Chapter XI of the Information Technology
       Act, 2000”



                             Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/3077/2026                          ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




9.     After consideration of the available material, we are of
the considered view that on the basis of one case, 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
       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 :



                               Page 4 of 6
      R/SCR.A/3077/2026                             ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




                “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
                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



                                   Page 5 of 6
      R/SCR.A/3077/2026                                                               ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




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 21.02.2026 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 23/03/2026 14:10:32




                                                       Page 6 of 6