VIJAYBHAI RAMSHIBHAI CHUDASAMA THRO. BHAVESHBHAI PANCHABHAI CHUDASAMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/572/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 572 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

==========================================================
        VIJAYBHAI RAMSHIBHAI CHUDASAMA THRO. BHAVESHBHAI
                      PANCHABHAI CHUDASAMA
                               Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) 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 Vijaybhai Ramshibhai
Cudasama came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 01/01/2026 passed by the District
Magistrate,             Gir-Somnath      District,      Veraval,          as      a
bootlegger as de ned under Section 2(b) 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/572/2026                       JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




2.       By way of this petition through his uncle, the detenue
has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.


3.       Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.


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 detenue and
presently he is detained in the Central Jail, Vadodara.


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
Gir-Somnath District, Veraval and lastly prayed to dismiss
the present petition.


                              Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/572/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




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 in Vadodara
Central Jail.           In the grounds of detention, reference of two
cases for the o&ences punishable under Sections 65(E),
81, 98(2) and 99 of the Prohibition Act registered with
Navabandar Marine Police Station against the detenue
from 19/10/2025 to 20/10/2025 is made out.


7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of
the detenue as a “bootlegger” a2ects adversely or are likely to
a2ect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained
under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.


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


         “2(b) "bootlegger" means a person who distills,
         manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells
         or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other


                                   Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/572/2026                        JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




         intoxicant in contravention of any provision of the
         Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and orders
         made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being
         in force or who knowingly expends or applies any money
         or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other
         conveyance or any receptacle or any other material
         whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any
         of the things described above by or through any other
         person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of
         any such thing;”


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 -nds 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/572/2026                            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


                             Page 5 of 6
        R/SCR.A/572/2026                                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




                      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 aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered
  opinion that, the material available 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 01/01/2026 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.




                                                                      (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 16:08:41




                                                      Page 6 of 6