RIYAJ S/O ANSAAR SHAIKH THRO SHAIKH ANSAR USMANversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE

      R/SCR.A/6221/2026                             ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6221 of 2026

==========================================================
         RIYAJ S/O ANSAAR SHAIKH THRO SHAIKH ANSAR USMAN
                               Versus
                   COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

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

                             Date : 01/05/2026

                             ORAL ORDER
              (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)


        Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
the respondents. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.


1.      The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the 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.




                                  Page 1 of 5
     R/SCR.A/6221/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




3.     Heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner – detenue
and learned APP appearing for the respondent – State.


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 under the
provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?




                                 Page 2 of 5
     R/SCR.A/6221/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




7.      The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner and
presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of 2
criminal cases, as mentioned in the impugned detention order, 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 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:



                                    Page 3 of 5
R/SCR.A/6221/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




           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 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 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



                                 Page 4 of 5
        R/SCR.A/6221/2026                                                                      ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




             giving rise to the question of maintenance of public order. The order of
             detention cannot, therefore, be upheld.”


 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 23.04.2026 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)
 MVP
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/05/2026 13:28:19




                                                             Page 5 of 5