High Court of Gujarat
AMIT MUKESHBHAI THAKKAR THRO MANISH DEVI PRASAD AGRAWALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
Holding
The detention order is invalid because the alleged offences do not affect or are not likely to affect public order.
Summary
Amit Mukeshbhai Thakkar was preventively detained on 14‑04‑2026 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a bootlegger. He challenged the detention, arguing that the alleged offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act pertained only to law and order, not public order as required by Section 3(4) of the Act. The State contended that his habitual bootlegging threatened public order in Vadodara. The High Court examined the distinction between law‑and‑order disturbances and public‑order threats, relying on Supreme Court precedents, and found no evidence that Thakkar’s activities created a community‑wide sense of insecurity or panic. Consequently, the Court held that the detaining authority had not satisfied the statutory requirement of adverse impact on public order, rendering the detention order invalid. The petition was allowed, the detention order quashed, and Thakkar was ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether the activities of a bootlegger constitute a threat to public order under Section 3(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985.
- Whether the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, without concrete evidence of public‑order disturbance, suffices to justify preventive detention.
- Interpretation of the term ‘public order’ versus ‘law and order’ under the Act.
Legislation cited
- Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985s. 2(b), s. 3(4)
Subjects
preventive detentionpublic orderlaw and orderbootleggingGujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities ActGujarat Prohibition Actsubjective satisfactionSupreme Court precedent
Judgment
R/SCR.A/5496/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5496 of 2026
=============================================
AMIT MUKESHBHAI THAKKAR THRO MANISH DEVI PRASAD
AGRAWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
JIGNESHKUMAR P PANDAV(8297) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
Mr. L.B. Dabhi, Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 28/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)
1. The petitioner herein namely Amit Mukeshbhai
Thakkar came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 14.04.2026 passed by the Police
Commissioner, Vadodara, as a bootlegger as defined
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 Mr. Jigneshkumar
Pandav for the petitioner and Mr. LB Dabhi, 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”,
Page 1 of 6
R/SCR.A/5496/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026
but is a purely a matter of law and order, as registration
of the offence cannot be said to have either affected
adversely or likely to affect 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 offences 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
offender and his activities affected 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.
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 thee criminal cases i.e. (i) for the offence
under Sections 65(A)(E), 98(2), 81, 108 and 116(B)
Page 2 of 6
R/SCR.A/5496/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026
of the Gujarat Prohibition Act with Laxmipura
Police Station, Vadodara, registered against the
petitioner under the Prohibition Law was made and
further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a
“bootlegger” affects adversely or are likely to affect
adversely the maintenance of public order as explained
under Section 3 of the Act of 1985. Admittedly, in said
offences, the petitioner was granted bail. It is required to
be noted that the detention order though refers to three
offences being registered against the petitioner in year
2020, 2022 and 2026, however reliance is placed on the
FIR registered with the Laxmipura Police Station on
7.4.2026. Even the record appended with the detention
order refers to the sole prohibition offence registered
with Laxmipura Police Station, Vadodara in 2020.
8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of sole prohibition
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 opinion, the said two
offences 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 offences. The Apex Court after referring the
Page 3 of 6
R/SCR.A/5496/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026
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 sufficient 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 specific
persons does not lead to public disorder.
When two people quarrel and fight 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 affects order but before it can
be said to affect public order, it must affect
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 affect the
community or injure the public interest and
the relatively minor breaches of peace of a
purely local significance which primarily
injure specific individuals and only in a
secondary sense public interest. A mere
disturbance of law and order leading to
disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for
action under the Preventive Detention Act but
a disturbance which will affect public order
Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/5496/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026
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 affect or are
likely to affect 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 offences committed by him but,
surely, the acts constituting the offences cannot be said to
have affected 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 affect adversely or are likely to affect
adversely the maintenance of public order We have
carefully considered the offences alleged against the
petitioner in the order of detention and also the
allegations made by the witnesses and, in our opinion,
these offences 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 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.
10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned dated 14.04.2026 passed by the respondent
authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenue to be
Page 5 of 6
R/SCR.A/5496/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026
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)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH RATHOD(HC00957), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/04/2026 17:19:35
Page 6 of 6
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "preventive detention"Sign in to search