VIJAYBHAI RAVUBHAI BORICHA THRO JAYDIPBHAI RAVUBHAI BORICHAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/6473/2026                          ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6473 of 2026
==========================================================
     VIJAYBHAI RAVUBHAI BORICHA THRO JAYDIPBHAI RAVUBHAI
                           BORICHA
                            Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SWETA P BAROT(10181) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL APP for the Respondents
==========================================================

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

                           Date : 06/05/2026

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


       Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of
     respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.


1.   The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide
     the detention order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the
     District Magistrate, Botad, 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.




                               Page 1 of 7
     R/SCR.A/6473/2026                               ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




3.   This Court has heard learned counsel Ms. S. P. Barot
     and Ms. Asmita Patel, learned Additional Public
     Prosecutor for the respective parties.

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 Botad.



                               Page 2 of 7
     R/SCR.A/6473/2026                              ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




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?


7.   The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner
     and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention,
     a reference of three criminal cases for the offences
     mentioned in the order of detention dated 24.04.2024
     with Gadhda Police Station, dated 24.02.2026 with
     Paliyad Police Station, dated 09.06.2026 with Gadhda
     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 three
     prohibition 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


                                  Page 3 of 7
R/SCR.A/6473/2026                            ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




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,
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

                            Page 4 of 7
R/SCR.A/6473/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




           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


                              Page 5 of 7
R/SCR.A/6473/2026                               ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026




   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/6473/2026                                                              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             15.04.2026                    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 06/05/2026 12:25:18




                                                       Page 7 of 7