BHARTIBEN MAHESHBHAI THAKOR THRO MAHESHKUMAR PRATAPJI THAKORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/8109/2026                           ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8109 of 2026

==========================================================
 BHARTIBEN MAHESHBHAI THAKOR THRO MAHESHKUMAR PRATAPJI
                         THAKOR
                          Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SALMAN S KHAN(9496) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAY 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 : 30/06/2026
                                ORDER
                (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)

1.     The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained
vide the detention order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the
respondent No.2 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 advocate Mr. Salman
S.Khan and learned A.P.P. Mr. Jay Mehta for the respective
parties.

4.     Learned advocate for the detenu submits that three
cases have been registered against the detenu under the


                                Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/8109/2026                       ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




Prohibition Act and has been condemned as a bootlegger. It is
submitted that the petitioner has already been released on
bail by the competent Court. Learned advocate submitted that
without any evidence, the cases have been registered against
the detenu and there is no case of any public disorder.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the
judgments in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs.
Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (City) reported in
AIR 1989 SC 491 and in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee
Vs. State of Bengal, reported in 1969 (1) SCC 10.

5.     Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted 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, then the detention order becomes invalid.

6.     On the other hand, learned A.P.P for the State opposing
the application contended that the detenu is a habitual
offender and his activities affects the society at large. In such
set of circumstances, the Detaining Authority, considering the
antecedents and past activities of the detenu, has passed the
impugned order with a view to prevent him from acting in any


                            Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/8109/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the
area of Ahmedabad.

7.     Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
made       by     the    respective    parties,     the     issue      arise        for
consideration 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?

8.     The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner
and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a
reference of three criminal cases i.e. (i) for the offence under
Sections 116B, 81 dated 22.04.2025 with Isanpur Police
Station, (ii) for the offence under Sections 6(1)B and 81 dated
04.01.2026 with Madhupura Police Station, (iii) for the
offence      under       Sections     66(1)B,     65(e)     and      116      dated
04.01.2026 with Madhupura Police Station, registered against
the petitioner under the Prohibition Law were made and
further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenu 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
petitioner was granted bail.

9.     After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of the said prohibition
cases, the authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective
satisfaction that the activities of the detenu 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


                                    Page 3 of 6
   R/SCR.A/8109/2026                                              ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




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 (supra), 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 (supra), 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 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



                                      Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/8109/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




              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 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


                                 Page 5 of 6
        R/SCR.A/8109/2026                                                           ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




                  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.”


 10.         We are of the considered opinion that, the material on
 record are not sufficient for holding that the alleged activities
 of the detenu alleging him as a bootlegger have either
 affected            adversely              or       likely         to      affect         adversely              the
 maintenance of public order, we are of a considered view that
 the registration of cases against the present detenu under
 Prohibition Act would not have, any effect on public order,
 unless it is proved by way of material on record that the
 activity of detenu has created tension in the area and has
 raised panic to adversely affect the public order. Therefore, it
 can be concluded that 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         30.05.2026               passed           by       the      respondent
 authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenu 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/16

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 30/06/2026 16:56:02




                                                      Page 6 of 6