R/SCR.A/5418/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5418 of 2025 ========================================================== SURAJ RAJUBHAI MOTVANI THRO POOJA SURAJ MOTVANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: O I PATHAN(7684) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA APP for the Respondents ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT Date : 23/04/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. The petitioner herein namely Suraj Rajubhai Motvani came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, as a “dangerous person” as defined under Section 2(c) o the Gujarat Prevention o Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (herein a ter re erred as ‘the Act o 1985) . 2. By way o this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity o the a oresaid order. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. O. I. Pathan and Mr. Aditya Jadeja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor or the respective parties. R/SCR.A/5418/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 4. Learned advocate or the detenue submits that the grounds o detention has no nexus to the “public order”, but is a purely a matter o law and order, as registration o the ofence cannot be said to have either afected adversely or likely to afect adverse the maintenance o public order as contemplated under the explanation sub-section (4) o Section 3 o the Act, 1985 and there ore, where the ofences alleged to have been committed by the detunue have no bearing on the question o maintenance o public order and his activities could be said to be a prejudicial only to the maintenance o law and order and not prejudicial to the maintenance o public order. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the application contended that, the detenue is habitual ofender and his activities afected at the society at large. In such set o circumstances, the Detaining Authority, considering the antecedents and past activities o the detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to preventing him rom acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance o public order in the area o Vadodara. 6. Having considered the acts as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, the issue arise as to whether the order o detention passed by R/SCR.A/5418/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 the Detaining Authority in exercise o his powers under the provisions o the Act o 1985 is sustainable in law? 7. The order impugned was executed upon the petitioner and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds o detention, a re erence o two criminal cases i.e. (i) or the ofence under Sections 303(2) dated 25.03.2025 with Sama Police Station, (ii) or the ofence under Sections 303(2) dated 18.10.2024 with Fatehgunj Police Station, registered against the petitioner under the BNS was made and urther it is alleged that, the activities o the detenue as a “dangerous person” afects adversely or are likely to afect adversely the maintenance o public order as explained under Section 3 o the Act o 1985. Admittedly, in all the said ofences, the petitioner was granted bail. 8. A ter care ul consideration o the material, we are o the considered view that on the basis o two criminal cases, the authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satis action that the activities o the detenue could be termed to be acting in a manner ‘prejudicial to the maintenance o public order’. In our opinion, the said ofences do not have any bearing on the maintenance o public order. In this connection, we may re er to the decision o the Apex Court in the R/SCR.A/5418/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 case o Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, wherein, the detention order was made on the basis o the registration o the two prohibition ofences. The Apex Court a ter re erring the case o Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 10 held and observed that mere disturbance o law and order leading to detention order is thus not necessarily sufcient or action under preventive detention Act. Paras-17 & 18 are relevant to re er, 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 specifc persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fght and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. R/SCR.A/5418/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 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 afects order but before it can be said to afect public order, it must afect 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 afect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local signifcance which primarily injure specifc individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufcient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will afect public order comes within the scope of the Act." 18. In the instant case, the detaining authority, R/SCR.A/5418/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 in our opinion, has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti- social activities of the petitioner adversely afect or are likely to afect 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 ofences committed by him but, surely, the acts constituting the ofences cannot be said to have afected 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 afect adversely or are likely to afect adversely the maintenance of public order We have carefully considered the ofences alleged against the petitioner in the order of detention and also the allegations made by the witnesses and, in our opinion, these ofences 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 R/SCR.A/5418/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 question 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 o the considered opinion that, the material on record are not sufcient or holding that the alleged activities o the detenue have either afected adversely or likely to afect adversely the maintenance o public order and there ore, the subjective satis action 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 05.04.2025 passed by the respondent authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenue to be set at liberty orthwith, i he is not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service permitted. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (SANDEEP N. BHATT,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 23/04/2025 11:57:07