KALURAM DEVILAL SUVALKA (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/03/2026)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/3421/2026                           ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3421 of 2026
=========================================
DHANRAJ SAVAIRAM RAJ THROUGH MOHANLAL SAVAIRAM RAJ
                         Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance:
MR KRUNAL L SHAHI(6519) 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 17/02/2026 passed by the respondent
     authority, 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 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 oFence cannot
     be said to have either aFected adversely or likely to aFect
     adverse the maintenance of public order as contemplated
     under the explanation sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act of


                                Page 1 of 5
     R/SCR.A/3421/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




     1985 and therefore, where the oFences 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 oFender
     and his activities aFected 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 Vadodara 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 one criminal case i.e. (i) for the oFence under Sections
     65(A)(E), 81 and 116(B) with Kapurai Police Station registered
     against the petitioner under the Prohibition Law was made and
     further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a
     “bootlegger” aFects adversely or are likely to aFect adversely
     the maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3
     of the Act of 1985. Admittedly, in said oFences, the petitioner
     was granted bail.



                                  Page 2 of 5
     R/SCR.A/3421/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




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 two oFences 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
     oFences. 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 suFicient 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. 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


                                     Page 3 of 5
     R/SCR.A/3421/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




                         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 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 suFicient for holding that
     the alleged activities of the detenue have either aFected
     adversely or likely to aFect 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.




                                     Page 4 of 5
        R/SCR.A/3421/2026                                                                      ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026




10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order impugned
         dated 17/02/2026 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 17:34:06




                                                             Page 5 of 5