JAGDISHSING MOHANSING CHAUHAN (RAJPUT) THRO UMABEN JAGDISHSING CHAUHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/5717/2026                          ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5717 of 2026

==========================================================
     JAGDISHSING MOHANSING CHAUHAN (RAJPUT) THRO UMABEN
                    JAGDISHSING CHAUHAN
                            Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
O I PATHAN(7684) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI APP for the Respondents
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                            Date : 01/05/2026

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


1.   The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide
     the detention order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the
     Police Commissioner, Vadodara, 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 counsel Mr. O. I. Pathan
     and Mr. LB Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
     for the respective parties.




                                 Page 1 of 7
     R/SCR.A/5717/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




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
     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.

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 in the area of Vadodara.

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

                                  Page 2 of 7
     R/SCR.A/5717/2026                                ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




     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 one criminal case for the offence under
     Sections 65(E), 98(2), 81, 108 dated 02.04.2026 with
     Bapod Police Station, registered against the petitioner
     under the Prohibition Law was made and further it is
     alleged that, the activities of the detenue 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.

8.   After careful consideration of the material, we are of
     the considered view that on the basis of one
     prohibition case, 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 two 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,


                                   Page 3 of 7
R/SCR.A/5717/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




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

                                Page 4 of 7
R/SCR.A/5717/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




                    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
                    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


                                Page 5 of 7
R/SCR.A/5717/2026                               ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




   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.”


                             Page 6 of 7
         R/SCR.A/5717/2026                                                              ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




  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 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             16.04.2026                    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)
  P.S. JOSHI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/05/2026 12:12:58




                                                         Page 7 of 7