NILOFAR W/O IMRAN HUSAINBHAI SAIYAD THRO HASINA W/O HUSAINBHAI SAIYADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/575/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 575 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

==========================================================
       NILOFAR W/O IMRAN HUSAINBHAI SAIYAD THRO HASINA W/O
                        HUSAINBHAI SAIYAD
                              Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) 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      Nilofar     W/o       Imran
Husainbhai Saiyed came to be preventively detained vide
the detention order dated 17/12/2025 passed by the District
Magistrate, Surat, as a cruel person as de ned under
Section 2(bbb) 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 her mother-in-law, the


                                  Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/575/2026                      JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




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, Ahmedabad.


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.




                             Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/575/2026                                   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
Ahmedabad Central Jail. In the grounds of detention,
reference of two cases for the o'ences punishable under
Sections           5,    6(A)(B),   8      of     the     Gujarat          Animal
Preservation Act, Sections 11(1)(L) of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animal Act and Sections 325 and 54 of the
BNS, 2023 registered with various police stations against
the detenue from 22/09/2024 to 28/07/2025 is made out.


7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of
the detenue as a “cruel person” a2ects adversely or are likely
to a2ect adversely the maintenance of public order as
explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985. Undisputedly, in
the aforesaid alleged o2ences, the petitioner was granted
regular bail by the concerned court.


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


                                    Page 3 of 6
     R/SCR.A/575/2026                        JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




         “2(bbb) "cruel person" means a person, who either by
         himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually
         commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission
         of an o ence punishable under section 8 of the Bombay
         Animal Preservation Act, 1954;".

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.”

        …..

        “21. This Court in SK. Nazneen (supra), had observed
        that the State should move for cancellation of bail of the


                               Page 4 of 6
R/SCR.A/575/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




   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 by a competent criminal
            court, great caution should be exercised in
            scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive


                             Page 5 of 6
      R/SCR.A/575/2026                                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026




                    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 17/12/2025 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 16:09:14




                                                    Page 6 of 6