RABARI VIPUL @VALAN RAGHUBHAI BIJALBHAI THRO MANUBHAI RAGHUBHAI DESAIversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE

     R/SCR.A/7223/2026                        ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7223 of 2026
=================================================
  RABARI VIPUL @VALAN RAGHUBHAI BIJALBHAI THRO
            MANUBHAI RAGHUBHAI DESAI
                        Versus
            DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & ORS.
=================================================
Appearance:
GAURAV VYAS(9855) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MEET THAKKAR APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                         Date : 19/06/2026

                           ORAL ORDER

       (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)

1.     The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained

       vide the detention order dated 14.05.2026 passed by

       the District Magistrate, Mehsana, 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



                              Page 1 of 9
     R/SCR.A/7223/2026                               ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




       the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3.     This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Gaurav

       Vyas and Mr. Meet Thakkar, 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,

       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   APP    opposing            the

       application contended that, the detenue is habitual

       offender and his activities affected the society at large.



                                    Page 2 of 9
     R/SCR.A/7223/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




       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

       Surat.

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 i.e. (i) for the offence

       under Sections 308(4), 351 and 61(2) with Mehsana

       Police Station, (ii) for the offence under Sections

       115(2), 352, 351(3), 54 and 135 with Mehsana Police

       Station, (iii) for the offence under Sections 351(2) and

       54 with Mehsana Police Station registered against the

       petitioner under the of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, was



                                    Page 3 of 9
     R/SCR.A/7223/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




       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.

8.     After careful consideration of the material, we are of

       the considered view that on the basis of three criminal

       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.

9.     The distinction between "public order" and "law and

       order" has been carefully defined in a Constitution

       Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

       Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and

       Others, (1966) 1 SCR 709. In this judgment, His

       Lordship          Hidayatullah,          J.   by      giving        various

       illustrations clearly defined the "public order" and "law

       and order". Relevant portion of the judgment reads



                                  Page 4 of 9
R/SCR.A/7223/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




  thus:

                  "....Does the expression "public order" take
           in every kind of disorder or only some? The
           answer to this serves to distinguish "public order"
           from "law and order" because the latter
           undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if
           disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every
           breach of the peace does not lead to public
           disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight
           there is disorder but not public disorder. They can
           be dealt with under the powers to maintain law
           and order but cannot be detained on the ground
           that they were disturbing public order. Suppose
           that the two fighters were of rival communities
           and one of them tried to raise communal
           passions. The problem is still one of law and
           order but it raises the apprehension of public
           disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The
           contravention of law always affects order but
           before it can be said to affect public order, it must
           affect the community or the public at large. A
           mere disturbance of law and order leading to
           disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for
           action under the Defence of India Act but
           disturbances which subvert the public order are.
           A District Magistrate is entitled to take action
           under Rule 30(l)(b) to prevent subversion of public
           order but not in aid of maintenance of law and
           order under ordinary circumstances.

                 It will thus appear that just as "public
           order" in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited)
           was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity
           than those affecting "security of State", "law and
           order" also comprehends disorders of less
           gravity than those affecting "public order". One
           has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and
           order represents the largest circle within which is
           the next circle representing public order and the



                               Page 5 of 9
      R/SCR.A/7223/2026                                ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




                 smallest circle represents security of State. It is
                 then easy to see that an act may affect law and
                 order but not public order just as an act may
                 affect public order but not security of the
                 State...."

9.1     The concept of `public order' and `law and order' has

        been dealt with in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee &

        Others v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC

        852. In this case, the Supreme Court had relied on the

        important work of Dr. Allen on `Legal Duties' and

        spelled out the distinction between `public' and

        `private' crimes in the realm of jurisprudence. In

        considering the material elements of crime, the historic

        tests which each community applies are intrinsic

        wrongfulness and social expediency which are the two

        most        important     factors      which   have     led     to       the

        designation of certain conduct as criminal. Dr. Allen

        has distinguished `public' and `private' crimes in the

        sense that some offences primarily injure specific

        persons and only secondarily the public interest, while

        others directly injure the public interest and affect

        individuals only remotely. There is a broad distinction



                                     Page 6 of 9
      R/SCR.A/7223/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




        along these lines, but differences naturally arise in the

        application of any such test.

9.2     The Supreme Court in the case of Babul Mitra alias

        Anil Mitra v. State of West Bengal & Others,

        (1973) 1 SCC 393 had an occasion to deal with the

        question of "public order" and "law and order". The

        Supreme Court observed that the true distinction

        between the areas of "law and order" and "public

        Order" is one of degree and extent of the reach of the

        act in question upon society. The court pointed out

        that the act by itself is not determinant of its own

        gravity. In its quality it may not differ but in its

        potentiality it may be very different.

9.3     In Commissioner of Police & Others, v. C. Anita

        (Smt.), (2004) 7 SCC 467, the Supreme Court again

        examined the issue of "public order" and "law and

        order" and observed thus:

                 "7. ....The crucial issue is whether the activities of
                 the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While
                 the expression "law and order" is wider in scope
                 inasmuch as contravention of law always affects
                 order, "public order" has a narrower ambit, and
                 public order could be affected by only such


                                      Page 7 of 9
      R/SCR.A/7223/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




                 contravention which affects the community or the
                 public at large. Public order is the even tempo of
                 life of the community taking the country as a
                 whole or even a specified locality. The distinction
                 between the areas of "law and order" and "public
                 order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach
                 of the act in question on society. It is the
                 potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of
                 life of the community which makes it prejudicial
                 to the maintenance of the public order. If a
                 contravention in its effect is confined only to a few
                 individuals directly involved as distinct from a
                 wide spectrum of the public, it could raise
                 problem of law and order only. It is the length,
                 magnitude and intensity of the terror wave
                 unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder
                 that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting
                 "public order" from that concerning "law and
                 order". The question to ask is:
                        "Does it lead to disturbance of the
                        current life of the community so as to
                        amount to a disturbance of the public
                        order or does it affect merely an
                        individual leaving the tranquility of
                        the society undisturbed?"
                        This question has to be faced in
                        every case on its facts."

10.     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



                                     Page 8 of 9
       R/SCR.A/7223/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




          detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid

          and in accordance with law.

11.       Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order

          impugned dated 14.05.2026 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.




                                                                                        (GITA GOPI,J)




                                                                                (L. S. PIRZADA, J)
DIKSHA


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: DIKSHA HARISH GUSAIN(HC02363), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/06/2026 16:20:27




                                                    Page 9 of 9