High Court of Gujarat
RAISH @PANDU S/O. LATIF SHAIKH THRO SHAIKH JAVID S/O. LATIFversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SURAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
Holding
The detention order is invalid because the detaining authority failed to demonstrate that the petitioner’s activities affect or are likely to affect public order.
Summary
The petitioner, Raish @Pandu, challenged his preventive detention order dated 13/04/2026 issued under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, on the ground that he was not a "dangerous person" as defined by the Act. The petitioner argued that the alleged offences related only to law and order and did not affect public order, whereas the State contended that his habitual offending threatened public order. The Court examined whether the detaining authority had satisfied the statutory requirement that the petitioner’s activities adversely affect or are likely to affect public order under Section 3(4) of the Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents distinguishing law and order from public order, the Court held that the offences cited did not impact the community at large and therefore did not meet the statutory test. Consequently, the detention order was deemed illegal and was quashed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether the preventive detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 is valid in the absence of a showing that the petitioner’s activities affect public order.
- Whether the alleged offences constitute a threat to public order as required by Section 3(4) of the Act.
- Interpretation of the distinction between "law and order" and "public order" in the context of preventive detention.
Legislation cited
- Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985s. 2(b), s. 2(c), s. 3, s. 3(4)
Subjects
preventive detentionpublic orderlaw and orderGujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Actquashdetention order
Judgment
R/SCR.A/6013/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6013 of 2026
==========================================================
RAISH @PANDU S/O. LATIF SHAIKH THRO SHAIKH JAVID S/O. LATIF
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SURAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 06/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively
detained vide the detention order dated 13/04/2026
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 advocates for the
respective parties.
Page 1 of 7
R/SCR.A/6013/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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,
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
Page 2 of 7
R/SCR.A/6013/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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 two criminal cases, as mentioned to in
the impugned detention order, registered against the
petitioner under the BNS 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.
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
Page 3 of 7
R/SCR.A/6013/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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
Page 4 of 7
R/SCR.A/6013/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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
adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely
the maintenance of public order. It is true some
Page 5 of 7
R/SCR.A/6013/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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/6013/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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 13/04/2026 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)
sompura
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/05/2026 12:35:45
Page 7 of 7
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "preventive detention"Sign in to search