RAHUL BABLU S/O SUBHASHBHAI PATIL THRO MUKESH DESALE S/O KASHINATHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/6433/2026                                ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6433 of 2026
==========================================================
 RAHUL BABLU S/O SUBHASHBHAI PATIL THRO MUKESH DESALE S/O
                         KASHINATH
                           Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ARJUNSINGH B CHAUHAN(11510) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL APP for the Respondents
==========================================================

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

                            Date : 06/05/2026

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


       Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.


1.   The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide
     the detention order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the
     Police Commissioner, Surat, as a “dangerous person”
     as      defined     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.




                                 Page 1 of 7
     R/SCR.A/6433/2026                               ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




3.   This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. A. B.
     Chauhan and Ms. Asmita Patel, 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 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 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 Surat.



                               Page 2 of 7
     R/SCR.A/6433/2026                              ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




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 two criminal cases i.e. (i) for the offence
     under Sections 304(2), 54 dated 28.03.2026 with
     Pandesara Police Station, (ii) for the offence under
     Sections 304(2), 54 dated 01.04.2026 with Pandesara
     Police Station, registered against the petitioner under
     the BNS was made and further it is alleged that, the
     activities of the detenue as a “dangerous 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 petitioner was granted bail.


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



                                  Page 3 of 7
R/SCR.A/6433/2026                            ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




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:

   “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

                            Page 4 of 7
R/SCR.A/6433/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




           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."

          18. In the instant case, the detaining authority,
          in our opinion, has failed to substantiate that
          the       alleged    anti-     social   activities          of    the


                                Page 5 of 7
R/SCR.A/6433/2026                            ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




          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


                          Page 6 of 7
      R/SCR.A/6433/2026                                                              ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




                    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             15.04.2026                    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)
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 06/05/2026 12:30:04




                                                      Page 7 of 7