PRAKASH @ PAPPU MANUBHAI VAGHELA THROUGH HIS SISTER PUNAMBEN MANUBHAI VAGHELA v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Court: High Court of Gujarat
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Gujarat judgment dated 2024-05-02. PRAKASH @ PAPPU MANUBHAI VAGHELA THROUGH HIS SISTER PUNAMBEN MANUBHAI VAGHELA v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT. Read...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20292 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE =========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? =========================================================== PRAKASH @ PAPPU MANUBHAI VAGHELA THROUGH HIS SISTER PUNAMBEN MANUBHAI VAGHELA Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. =========================================================== Appearance: DINESHKUMAR D GAUTAM(9549) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DS AFF. NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No.
1 =========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE Date : 02/05/2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. Y. KOGJE) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following relief:- “(a) xxx (b) BE PLEASED to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 23/10/2023, at Annexure-’A’ passed by office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, the respondent no. 2 (herein after referred as the detaining authority) by order No- PCB/DTN/PASA/586/2023, Dated 23/10/2023, passed by office of the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad i. e. the Respondent No. 2, herein and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner from detention forthwith and set at free, in the interest of justice. ” (c) & (d) xxx. ” 2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 23. 10.
2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, respondent No. 2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act based on two offences registered against him, details of which are as under:- Sr. Name of Police CR No. and date Sections Date of bail No. Station order 1 Saherkotda Police 11191041220792 of 65E, 116 and 24. 06. 2022 Station 2022 dated 81 of the 03. 05. 2022 Prohibition Act 2 Saherkotda Police 11191041230717 of 65AE, 81, 116B 20. 10. 2023 Station 2023 dated and 98(2) of the 27. 07. 2023 Prohibition Act 3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground as registration of the offences under Sections of the Prohibition Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(b) of the Act.
Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society. 3. 1 It is submitted that there is no FLS report on record. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction that the public health is adversely affected is vitiated. 4.
Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2(b) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court. 5.
Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations as have been levelled against the detenue cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenue within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act. Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society. Though the detaining authority has concluded that the so called activity of the petitioner has led to harm public health, however, there is no material or data on record to support such subjective satisfaction.
Therefore, the subjective satisfaction that the public health is adversely affected is vitiated. 6. The Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction and the detention order does not reflect application of mind to the fact that the Detaining Authority has considered cancellation of bail to be ineffective method to curtail activities of the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the Detaining Authority not having taken into consideration the cancellation of bail option. The subjective satisfaction would stand vitiated as is held in recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors. reported in 2023 (9) SCC 633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 19 as under:- “19.
In any case, the State is not without a remedy, as in case the detenue is much a menace to the society as is being alleged, then the prosecution should seek for the cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal to the Higher Court. But definitely seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case. ” 7. Though the detaining authority has concluded that the so called activity of the petitioner has led to harm public health, however, there is no material or data on record to support such subjective satisfaction. Further, even FLS report is not on record. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction that the public health is adversely affected is vitiated. 8. The Court also finds that there is no live link between the offenes at the first offence was registered on 03. 05. 2022 and the second on 27. 07. 2023. The Apex Court in case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in AIR 2022 S. C.
4715 has treated the live link between the offences committed to be a very relevant aspect to satisfy the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 9. In view of above, we are inclined to allow this petition, because simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have recourse under the Act and no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act. 10. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 23. 10. 2023 passed by the respondent–detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (A. Y. KOGJE, J) (SAMIR J. DAVE,J) SHITOLE
Source: High Court of Gujarat. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.