JITENDRAKUMAR @ BANTO SAMPATSINH CHAUHAN THRO. LALWANI DIPAKKUMAR GIRDHARILALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/6281/2026                          ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6281 of 2026
==========================================================
 JITENDRAKUMAR @ BANTO SAMPATSINH CHAUHAN THRO. LALWANI
                 DIPAKKUMAR GIRDHARILAL
                          Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J VYAS(6233) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI(7074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                           Date : 04/05/2026

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


1.     Leave to amend. The necessary amendment to be carried
out forthwith.


2.     Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule for the
respondents.


3.     The petitioner herein namely Jitendrakumar @ Banto
Sampatsinh Chauhan came to be preventively detained vide
the detention order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the Police
Commissioner, Vadodara City, 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).

4.     By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
legality and validity of the aforesaid order.



                               Page 1 of 6
      R/SCR.A/6281/2026                                ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




5.      This Court has heard Mr.Viral Vyas, learned counsel for
the     petitioner        and   Mr.L.B.   Dabhi    learned     APP     for       the
respondent-State.

6.      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 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.

7.      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 City.

8.      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



                                     Page 2 of 6
      R/SCR.A/6281/2026                       ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




is sustainable in law?


9.      The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner
and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a
reference of criminal cases i.e. for the offences punishable
under Sections 65(A),(E), 81, 83, 86, 98(2), 116(B) of the
Prohibition Act, and Sections 111(2)(B), 111(3), 111(4) of BNS,
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 applicant was granted bail.

10.     After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of 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 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



                              Page 3 of 6
   R/SCR.A/6281/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




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


                                  Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/6281/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




                    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."


   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.”




                                 Page 5 of 6
      R/SCR.A/6281/2026                                                            ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




11.       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.

12.       Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned              dated          25.04.2026                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)
Rakesh

 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
 Digitally signed by: RAKESH MAHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC00950), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/05/2026 16:24:34




                                                     Page 6 of 6