Blog

Rohit S/O Bhaidas Pawar vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2023

Bench: Honourable Justice A.S. Supehia

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2773 of 2023

In order to understand this case, we must look into Section 2(c ) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. Section 2(c ) defines a dangerous person. As per this section, a dangerous person is a person who habitually commits any offence punishable under chapter 16/17 of the IPC

 Facts

The present petition is directed against the order of detention passed by the respondent – detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 detaining the petitioner. Section 3(1) allows the state Government to detain any person to restrain him from disturbing public order

The advocate for the detenue submitted that the impugned order of detention of the detenue requires to be quashed and set aside because the detaining authority had passed it solely on the ground of registration of two FIRs, first for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and another for the offences under Section 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code respectively by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Section 323 prescribes the punishment for causing grievous hurt which is not more than 1 year. Section 324 prescribes the punishment for causing grievous hurt by the use of dangerous weapons which is imprisonment for a term not more than 3 years. Section 504 of IPC provides the punishment for insulting someone which is imprisonment for a term that may extend to 2 years. Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 defines a dangerous person. A dangerous person is a person who habitually commits any offence punishable under chapter 16/17 of the IPC

The advocate for the respondent-State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidences were found during the course of investigation which indicate that the detenue is in the habit of indulging in dangerous activities as defined under section 2(c) 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.

Judgement

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the documents and material available on record of the case, prima facie, the Court found 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. It also held that the allegations levelled against the detenue cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenue within the realm of meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.

In view of the above, the Court allowed the petition, because in the instant case, there was no breach of maintenance of public order and no relevant material existed for invoking power under section 3(1) of the Act.

The Court also remarked that it is high time that the State Authorities should introspect their action of passing detention order in a casual manner since this Court has been confronted with numerous orders of detention, which do not stand the test of settled legal proposition of law.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”