DIPAKBHAI FATEHLAL SHAH THRO. PUJABEN ASHOKBHAI SHAH W/O DIPAKBHAI SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/3127/2026                           ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3127 of 2026
=========================================
  DIPAKBHAI FATEHLAL SHAH THRO. PUJABEN ASHOKBHAI
               SHAH W/O DIPAKBHAI SHAH
                          Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance:
MR. BHAVIK P SHAH(6391) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                         Date : 16/04/2026

                   ORAL ORDER
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)


       Draft amendment is allowed.


1.   The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide the
     detention order dated 20/02/2026 passed by the respondent
     authority, 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 counsel and learned Additional
     Public Prosecutor for the respective parties.


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


                                Page 1 of 5
     R/SCR.A/3127/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




     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 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.


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 reference
     of two criminal cases as mentioned in the impugned detention
     order and 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. Admittedly, in
     all the said offences, the petitioner was granted bail.



                                  Page 2 of 5
     R/SCR.A/3127/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




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


        “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


                                     Page 3 of 5
     R/SCR.A/3127/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




                         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 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


                                     Page 4 of 5
        R/SCR.A/3127/2026                                                                     ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




         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 20/02/2026 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)
Kaushal Rathod

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/04/2026 17:18:57




                                                             Page 5 of 5