RAKESH @ BHAILU AMARASING LAKHANSING CHAUHAN THRO SONAMBEN RAKESH RAJPUTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/9030/2026                        ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9030 of 2026
=================================================
 RAKESH @ BHAILU AMARASING LAKHANSING CHAUHAN
          THRO SONAMBEN RAKESH RAJPUT
                        Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=================================================
Appearance:
DINESHKUMAR D GAUTAM(9549) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. VINAY VISHAN APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                         Date : 15/07/2026

                              ORDER

       (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)

1.     The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained

       vide the detention order dated 22.06.2026 passed by

       the respondent authority as a “bootlegger” as defined

       under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-

       social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter 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 8
     R/SCR.A/9030/2026                          ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026




3.     This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing

       for the respective parties.

4.     Learned advocate for the detenu submits criminal

       cases have been registered against the detenu under

       the Prohibition Act and has been condemned as a

       bootlegger. Learned advocate for the detenu has

       submitted that without any evidence, the case has

       been registered against the detenu and there is no case

       of any public disorder. Learned advocate for the detenu

       has relied on the judgments in the case of Piyush

       Kantilal          Mehta   vs.    Commissioner      of     Police,

       Ahmedabad (City) reported in AIR 1989 SC 491 and

       in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of

       Bengal, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 10.

5.     Learned advocate for the detenu submitted 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



                                  Page 2 of 8
     R/SCR.A/9030/2026                      ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026




       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 detenu 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, then the detention

       order becomes invalid.

6.     On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposing

       the application contended that the detenu is a habitual

       offender and his activities affects the society at large.

       In such set of circumstances, the detaining authority,

       considering the antecedents and past activities of the

       detenu, has passed the impugned order with a view to

       prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to

       the maintenance of public order in the area of

       Ahmedabad.

7.     Having considered the facts as well as the submissions

       made by the respective parties, the issue arises for

       consideration as to whether the order of detention



                             Page 3 of 8
     R/SCR.A/9030/2026                        ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026




       passed by the detaining authority in exercise of the

       powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is

       sustainable in law?

8.     The order impugned was executed upon the detenu. In

       the grounds of detention, a reference of criminal case

       i.e. (i) for the offence under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 116(b)

       and 98(2) of BNS with Shahibaug Police Station was

       made and further it is alleged that the activities of the

       detenu 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.

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

       the considered view that on the basis of the said

       prohibition cases, the authority has wrongly arrived at

       the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the

       detenu 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court



                              Page 4 of 8
R/SCR.A/9030/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026




  in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra), wherein

  the detention order was made on the basis of the

  registration of the two prohibition offences. The

  Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring the case of

  Pushkar Mukherjee (supra), 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 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



                                  Page 5 of 8
R/SCR.A/9030/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026




                    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


                                 Page 6 of 8
      R/SCR.A/9030/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026




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

10.     We are of the considered opinion that the material on

        record are not sufficient for holding that the alleged

        activities of the detenu alleging him as a bootlegger

        have either affected adversely or likely to affect

        adversely the maintenance of public order, we are of a

        considered view that the registration of cases against

        the present detenu under Prohibition Act would not

        have any effect on public order, unless it is proved by

        way of material on record that the activity of detenu

        has created tension in the area and has raised panic to

        adversely affect the public order. Therefore, it can be

        concluded that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by

        the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid

        and in accordance with law.

11.     Accordingly,        the    petition        is   allowed.      The      order

        impugned dated 22.06.2026 passed by the respondent

        authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenu to

        be set at liberty forthwith, if is not required in any



                                     Page 7 of 8
      R/SCR.A/9030/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026




         other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct

         service is 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 15/07/2026 14:45:01




                                                   Page 8 of 8