AMITBHAI @DADHI VASHRAMBHAI PARMAR THRO SNEHA SAVJIBHAI VANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/7347/2026                          ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7347 of 2026

==========================================================
 AMITBHAI @DADHI VASHRAMBHAI PARMAR THRO SNEHA SAVJIBHAI
                          VANIYA
                           Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P I PATHAN(11235) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                            Date : 17/06/2026
                             ORAL ORDER
                (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)


1.     The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained
vide the detention order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the
Respondent No.2, 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.

3.     This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. P.I. Pathan
and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the respective parties.




                                Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/7347/2026                                ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




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, 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 APP opposing the application
contended that, the detenue is habitual offender and his
activities affected 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 Rajkot City.

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


                                    Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/7347/2026                              ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




reference of two criminal cases registered against the
petitioner under the of 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.

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 opinion, the said offences do not have any bearing on
the maintenance of public order.

9.      The distinction between "public order" and "law and
order" has been carefully defined in a Constitution Bench
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Others, (1966) 1
SCR 709. In this judgment, His Lordship Hidayatullah, J. by
giving various illustrations clearly defined the "public order"
and "law and order". Relevant portion of the judgment reads
thus:

              "....Does the expression "public order" take in every
           kind of disorder or only some? The answer to this
           serves to distinguish "public order" from "law and
           order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of
           them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public
           disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to
           public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight
           there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be
           dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order
           but cannot be detained on the ground that they were



                                  Page 3 of 6
      R/SCR.A/7347/2026                                ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




            disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters
            were of rival communities and one of them tried to
            raise communal passions. The problem is still one of
            law and order but it raises the apprehension of public
            disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The
            contravention of law always affects order but before it
            can be said to affect public order, it must affect the
            community or the public at large. A mere disturbance
            of law and order leading to disorder is thus not
            necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of
            India Act but disturbances which subvert the public
            order are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take
            action under Rule 30(l)(b) to prevent subversion of
            public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and
            order under ordinary circumstances.


                It will thus appear that just as "public order" in the
            rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to
            comprehend disorders of less gravity than those
            affecting "security of State", "law and order" also
            comprehends disorders of less gravity than those
            affecting "public order". One has to imagine three
            concentric circles. Law and order represents the
            largest circle within which is the next circle
            representing public order and the smallest circle
            represents security of State. It is then easy to see that
            an act may affect law and order but not public order
            just as an act may affect public order but not security
            of the State...."


9.1     The concept of `public order' and `law and order' has
been dealt with in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee & Others
v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 852. In this
case, the Supreme Court had relied on the important work of
Dr. Allen on `Legal Duties' and spelled out the distinction
between `public' and `private' crimes in the realm of
jurisprudence. In considering the material elements of crime,
the historic tests which each community applies are intrinsic
wrongfulness and social expediency which are the two most
important factors which have led to the designation of certain
conduct as criminal. Dr. Allen has distinguished `public' and


                                    Page 4 of 6
      R/SCR.A/7347/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




`private' crimes in the sense that some offences primarily
injure specific persons and only secondarily the public
interest, while others directly injure the public interest and
affect individuals only remotely. There is a broad distinction
along these lines, but differences naturally arise in the
application of any such test.

9.2     The Supreme Court in the case of Babul Mitra alias
Anil Mitra v. State of West Bengal & Others, (1973) 1
SCC 393 had an occasion to deal with the question of "public
order" and "law and order". The Supreme Court observed that
the true distinction between the areas of "law and order" and
"public Order" is one of degree and extent of the reach of the
act in question upon society. The court pointed out that the
act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality
it may not differ but in its potentiality it may be very different.

9.3     In Commissioner of Police & Others, v. C. Anita
(Smt.), (2004) 7 SCC 467, the Supreme Court again
examined the issue of "public order" and "law and order" and
observed thus:

            "7. ....The crucial issue is whether the activities of the
            detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the
            expression "law and order" is wider in scope inasmuch
            as contravention of law always affects order, "public
            order" has a narrower ambit, and public order could be
            affected by only such contravention which affects the
            community or the public at large. Public order is the
            even tempo of life of the community taking the country
            as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction
            between the areas of "law and order" and "public order"
            is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act
            in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to
            disturb the even tempo of life of the community which
            makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public


                                     Page 5 of 6
         R/SCR.A/7347/2026                                                          ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




                  order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to
                  a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a
                  wide spectrum of the public, it could raise problem of
                  law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and
                  intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular
                  eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act
                  affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and
                  order". The question to ask is:

                      "Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the
                      community so as to amount to a disturbance of the
                      public order or does it affect merely an individual
                      leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?"

                      This question has to be faced in every case on its
                      facts."


  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 law.

  11.         Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
  impugned               dated         06.05.2026                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.



                                                                                                  (GITA GOPI,J)



                                                                                           (L. S. PIRZADA, J)
  Pankaj/21
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/06/2026 15:54:59




                                                       Page 6 of 6