FARUK YUSUFBHAI BABI THRO BABI SHABIR YUSUFBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/5804/2026                          ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5804 of 2026

==========================================================
         FARUK YUSUFBHAI BABI THRO BABI SHABIR YUSUFBHAI
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI(5950) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI APP for the Respondents
==========================================================

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

                           Date : 01/05/2026

                            ORAL ORDER
             (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1.     The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 12.04.2026 passed by the District Magistrate,
Devbhumi Dwarka, as a “cruel person” as defined under Section
2(bbb) 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. Nirav C. Sanghavi
and Mr. L. B. Dabhi, learned APP 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 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, 1985 and therefore, where


                                Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/5804/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




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 Dev-bhumi
Dwarka.

6.       Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made
by the respective parties, the 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?

7.       The order impugned was executed upon the applicant. In the
grounds of detention, a reference of one criminal case registered
against the applicant for the offence dated 09.02.2026 registered
with Dwarka Police Station was made and further it is alleged that,
the activities of the detenue as a “cruel person” 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 all the
said offences, the applicant was granted bail.

8.       The term ‘Cruel Person’ defined under Section 2(bbb) reads as
under:

                "cruel person" means a person, who either by himself or


                                    Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/5804/2026                            ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




                as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or
                attempts to commit or abets the commission of an
                offence punishable under section 8 of the Bombay
                Animal Preservation Act, 1954;"

9.   After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
     considered view that, there is no material placed before the
     authority to establish that the applicant was convicted of an
     offence punishable under Section 8 of the Bombay Animal
     Preservation Act, 1954 within a period of 3 years from the date
     of such conviction who either himself or as a member or leader
     of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets
     the commission of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954.
     Thus, therefore, we are of the firm view that, the activities as
     alleged would not fall under the definition of ‘cruel person’.
     After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
     considered view that on the basis of said criminal 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 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 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:


                                  Page 3 of 6
R/SCR.A/5804/2026                               ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




   “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 comes within
           the scope of the Act."




                                Page 4 of 6
      R/SCR.A/5804/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




         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.”

10.     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


                                    Page 5 of 6
        R/SCR.A/5804/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




law.

11.        Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order impugned
dated 12.04.2206 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)
P.S. JOSHI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/05/2026 12:13:29




                                                       Page 6 of 6