IRFAN @ NADI S/O RAMJAN SHAIKH THROUGH BILKISBANU RAMZAN SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/565/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 565 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

==========================================================
 IRFAN @ NADI S/O RAMJAN SHAIKH THROUGH BILKISBANU RAMZAN
                           SHAIKH
                            Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                             Date : 10/02/2026

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


1.      The detenue herein namely Irfan @ Nadi S/O Ramzan
Shaikh came to be preventively detained vide the detention
order         dated     31/12/2025       passed         by   the       Police
Commissioner, Surat, as a dangerous person as de ned
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 through mother, the detenue has



                                 Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/565/2026                       JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




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 Central Jail.


5.      On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present
petition contended that the detenue is habitual o2ender and
his activities a2ected 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
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of
Surat and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.


6.      Having considered the facts as well as the submissions


                              Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/565/2026                      JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




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 Central Jail. In the grounds of detention, reference
of two cases for the o%ences punishable under Sections
118(1), 296(B) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and Section
135(1) of the GP Act registered with Limbayat Police
Station against the detenue from 14/01/2025 to 29/12/2025 is
made out.


7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of
the detenue as a “dangerous person” a2ects adversely or are
likely to a2ect adversely the maintenance of public order as
explained under the provisions of the the Act of 1985.
Undisputedly, in the aforesaid alleged o2ences, the detenue
was granted bail by the concerned court.


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


                             Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/565/2026                        JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




        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 o ences 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 o ences 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 o2ences 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 o ence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the
        ordinary course of nature. The power of preventive
        detention 2nds 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.”

        …..



                              Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/565/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




   “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
            su icient means to address the apprehensions
            leading to the impugned detention order. There
            may have existed su icient 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 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


                             Page 5 of 6
        R/SCR.A/565/2026                                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




                      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 su2icient for
  holding that the alleged activities of the detenue have either
  a2ected            adversely              or      likely          to     a2ect          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 31/12/2025 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)
  ILA



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: ILA PRAFULKUMAR PATEL(HC00194), Principal Pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/02/2026 16:08:57




                                                      Page 6 of 6