SAHILBHAI @ SAHU HANIFBHAI NURABHAI PARMAR THRO. THEBA MUSTUFA MERUversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/SCR.A/6485/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6485 of 2026

==========================================================
     SAHILBHAI @ SAHU HANIFBHAI NURABHAI PARMAR THRO. THEBA
                         MUSTUFA MERU
                              Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS GAYATRIBA B JADEJA(5152) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 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 herein came to be preventively detained
vide the detention order dated 13.04.2026 (actual date of
detention is          30.04.2026) passed by the District Magistrate,
Morbi, 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 Ms. Gayatriba
Jadeja      and      Ms.   Asmita   Patel,        learned     Additional       Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State.



                                    Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/6485/2026                                ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




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 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 Morbi.

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



                                    Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/6485/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a
reference of one criminal case registered against the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116(B),
98(2) and 81 of Prohibition Act and Sections 336(2) and 340(2)
of B.N.S. dated 13.02.2026 registered with Morbi City “A”
Division Police Station, Morbi 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 offence, the applicant was
granted bail.

8.     After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of one 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 offence does 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/6485/2026                               ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




   “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/6485/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




        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.”


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



                                     Page 5 of 6
       R/SCR.A/6485/2026                                                    ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




 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 13.04.2026 (actual date of detention is
 30.04.2026) 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)
 TAUSIF SAIYED


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: TAUSIFAHMED SAIYED(HC01401), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/05/2026 12:29:53




                                                 Page 6 of 6