KIRAN @BHIKHO UMEDBHAI SOLANKI THRO. MANISH MUKESHBHAI KHATIKversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE

     R/SCR.A/1260/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1260 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting               Yes         No
                                                               √
==========================================================
 KIRAN @BHIKHO UMEDBHAI SOLANKI THRO. MANISH MUKESHBHAI
                         KHATIK
                          Versus
              COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                              Date : 18/02/2026

                     ORAL JUDGMENT
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)


1.       The       detenue   herein     namely     KIRAN       @      BHIKO
UMEDBHAI SOLANKI came to be preventively detained vide
the detention order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the
Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, 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).



                                  Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/1260/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




2.       By way of this petition through his friend namely
Manish Mukeshbhai Khatik, the detenue has challenged the
legality and validity of the aforesaid order.


3.       This Court has heard learned advocate for the
petitioner         and   learned   APP       for   the   respondent-State
Authorities.


4.       Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued
that there was no material available with the detention
authority to indicate as to how the public health or public
order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner.
Thus, in absence of any such material on record, the order
of detention ought not have been passed.                       It is further
submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the
impugned order is passed without application of mind and
prima facie the order is passed mechanically.
4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted
that the impugned order was executed upon the petitioner
and presently he is detained in the Rajkot Jail.


5.       On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present
petition contended that the detenue is habitual offender and
his activities affected at the society at large. Hence, 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


                                   Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/1260/2026                      JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of
Ahmedabad and lastly prayed to dismiss the present
petition.


6.       Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the core issue arises 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 or not?


7.       We have carefully gone through the order passed by
the concerned authority. It appears that the order impugned
was executed upon the detenue and presently he is detained
in Rajkot Jail. In the grounds of detention, reference of two
criminal cases for the offences punishable under Sections
296, 75(2), 118(1), 296(B), 54 of the BNS and under Section
135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act registered with Shahibaug
Police Station is made out against the detenue from
27.10.2024 to 27.08.2025.
7.1. In the impugned order, 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 the provisions of the the Act of 1985.
Undisputedly, in the aforesaid alleged offences, the detenue
was granted bail by the concerned court.



                              Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/1260/2026                          JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




8.       Considering the impugned order, it appears that the
provisions of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985 is referred by
the concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to
be reproduced. The same reads as under:


         “(c) "dangerous person" means a person, who either by
         himself or as a member or leader of a gang, during a period
         of three successive years, habitually commits, or attempts to
         commit or abets the commission of any of the offences
         punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter VIII or Chapter
         XVI (except section 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376,
         376A, 376B, 3376C, 376D, or 377) or Chapter XVII or
         Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences
         punishable under chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959;”


9.       After consideration of the available material, we are of
the considered view that on the basis of two 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 considered opinion, the said offences do not
have any bearing on the maintenance of public order.                         In
this regard, we would like to refer the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and others
reported in AIR 2025 SC 2868. In para-9 and para-21 of the
said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:

         “9. It is well settled that the provision for preventive
         detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the
         State that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of
         an individual in anticipation of the commission of further


                                 Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/1260/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




    offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary
    course of nature. The power of preventive detention finds
    recognition in the Constitution itself, under Article 22(3)(b).
    However, this Court has emphasized in Rekha v. State of
    Tamil Nadu3 that the power of preventive detention is an
    exception to Article 21 and, therefore, must be applied as
    such, as an exception to the main rule and only in rare
    cases.”

    …..

    “21. This Court in SK. Nazneen (supra), had observed that
    the State should move for cancellation of bail of the detenu,
    instead of placing him under the law of preventive detention,
    which is not the appropriate remedy. Similarly, in Ameena
    Begum v. State of Telengana9 , this Court observed :

            “59. … It is pertinent to note that in the three criminal
            proceedings where the detenu had been released on
            bail, no applications for cancellation of bail had been
            moved by the State. In the light of the same, the
            provisions of the Act, which is an extraordinary
            statute, should not have been resorted to when
            ordinary criminal law provided sufficient means to
            address the apprehensions leading to the impugned
            detention order. There may have existed sufficient
            grounds to appeal against the bail orders, but the
            circumstances did not warrant the circumvention of
            ordinary criminal procedure to resort to an
            extraordinary measure of the law of preventive
            detention.”

            60. In Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [Vijay
            Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14 : 1984
            SCC (Cri) 361] , Hon'ble E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as the
            Chief Justice then was) observed : (SCC pp. 35-36,
            para 32)

            32. … It is well settled that the law of preventive
            detention is a hard law and therefore it should be
            strictly construed. Care should be taken that the
            liberty of a person is not jeopardised unless his case
            falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant


                              Page 5 of 6
    R/SCR.A/1260/2026                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




                   law. The law of preventive detention should not be
                   used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is
                   involved in a criminal prosecution. It is not intended for
                   the purpose of keeping a man under detention when
                   under ordinary criminal law it may not be possible to
                   resist the issue of orders of bail, unless the material
                   available is such as would satisfy the requirements of
                   the legal provisions authorising such detention. When
                   a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal
                   court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising
                   the validity of an order of preventive detention which is
                   based on the very same charge which is to be tried by
                   the criminal court.” (Emphasis supplied)”

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 17.09.2025 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.


                                                                           (N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)




                                                                                          (D. M. VYAS, J)
MAYA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MAYA SHANKERLAL CHAUHAN(HC01402), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/02/2026 17:59:19




                                                  Page 6 of 6