MOHAMMAD ARIF NOOR MOHAMMAD SHAIKH THRO. FARHANABANU MOHAMMAD ARIF SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/6490/2026                          ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6490 of 2026

==========================================================
 MOHAMMAD ARIF NOOR MOHAMMAD SHAIKH THRO. FARHANABANU
                 MOHAMMAD ARIF SHAIKH
                         Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PARTH .B. CHAUHAN(14307) 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 notice on behalf
of respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.


1.     The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide
the detention order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the
respondent authority under Section 3(1) of the Prevention
of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 (PIT-NDPS Act).


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. P. B.
Chauhan and Ms. Asmita Petel, learned Additional Public


                               Page 1 of 7
      R/SCR.A/6490/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




Prosecutor for the respondent State.

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 (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 1988 and therefore,
where the offences alleged to have been committed by
the      detenue           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
Ahmedabad.

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


                                         Page 2 of 7
     R/SCR.A/6490/2026                          ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




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 1988 is sustainable in law?

7.     The       order   impugned     was    executed      upon           the
applicant and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of
detention, a reference of one criminal case registered
against the applicant for the offence punishable under
Sections 8(C), 20(C) and 29 of NDPS Act dated 30.05.2025
registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad was made
and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue
affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the
maintenance of public order as explained under the
provisions of Act of 1988.

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

                               Page 3 of 7
   R/SCR.A/6490/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




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


                                    Page 4 of 7
R/SCR.A/6490/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




          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 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


                             Page 5 of 7
     R/SCR.A/6490/2026                               ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




        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.


                                  Page 6 of 7
         R/SCR.A/6490/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
 impugned dated 21.04.2026 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 12:28:30




                                                        Page 7 of 7