PARESH @ PARIYO KIRAN@ MUNNA MANEKLAL TAMANCHE THRO SANJITABEN PARESHBHAI TAMANCHEversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/3192/2026                           ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
   R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3192 of 2026
=========================================
  PARESH @ PARIYO KIRAN@ MUNNA MANEKLAL TAMANCHE
        THRO SANJITABEN PARESHBHAI TAMANCHE
                         Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MS. SHEFALI U TAMAICHI(17576) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MRS MEGHABEN 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 came to be preventively detained vide the
     detention order dated 19/02/2026 passed by the respondent
     authority, as a “dangerous person” as de<ned 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, the petitioner has challenged the
     legality and validity of the aforesaid order.


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


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 oEence cannot
     be said to have either aEected adversely or likely to aEect
     adverse the maintenance of public order as contemplated


                                Page 1 of 5
     R/SCR.A/3192/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




     under the explanation sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act,
     1985 and therefore, where the oEences 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 oEender
     and his activities aEected 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 City.


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 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 four criminal cases i.e. (i) for the oEence under Sections
     304(2) with Airport Police Station, (ii) for the oEence under
     Sections 304(2) with Airport Police Station, (iii) for the oEence
     under Sections 304(2) with Airport Police Station, (iv) for the
     oEence under Sections 303(2) with Naroda Police Station
     registered against the petitioner under the BNS/Indian Penal
     Code (old) was made and further it is alleged that, the



                                  Page 2 of 5
     R/SCR.A/3192/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




     activities of the detenue as a “dangerous person” aEects
     adversely or are likely to aEect adversely the maintenance of
     public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.
     Admittedly, in all the said oEences, the petitioner was granted
     bail.


8.   After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
     considered view that on the basis of aforesaid 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 oEences 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 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
     oEences. 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 suEicient 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



                                     Page 3 of 5
R/SCR.A/3192/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




                    and assault each other inside a house or in a street,
                    it may be said that there is disorder but not public
                    disorder. 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 su2icient
                    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 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


                                Page 4 of 5
       R/SCR.A/3192/2026                                                                     ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




                      maintenance of public order. The order of detention cannot,
                      therefore, be upheld.”


9.      For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered opinion
        that, the material on record are not suEicient for holding that
        the alleged activities of the detenue have either aEected
        adversely or likely to aEect 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 19/02/2026 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)
Kaushal Rathod
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
 Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/03/2026 17:33:27




                                                            Page 5 of 5