Filing of a FIR or FIRs by itself cannot be connected to a violation of maintaining public order : Gujarat High court
TITLE: Ghanshyam Derubhai Budhelia v State of Gujarat
Decided On-: August 11, 2023
12589 of 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia and Mr. M.R Mengdey
INTRODUCTION-
The current petition challenges a detention order that was issued on passed by the respondent – the detaining authority – while acting within the scope of the authority granted to it by section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985
FACTS OF THE CASE
The order of detention challenged in this petition deserves to be quashed and overturned on the grounds that the filing of the three FIRs for violations of Sections 65(A)(E), 81, and 116(b), Sections 65(A)(E), 116(b), 81, and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act, and Sections 65(A)(E), 81, 83, 116(b), knowledgeable attorney for the petitioner further argued that any illegal activity that is likely to be committed or is alleged to have been committed cannot be connected to or have anything to do with maintaining public order; at most, it can be considered a violation of law and order. In addition, other than witness statements and the filing of the aforementioned FIRs, there is no other pertinent or convincing evidence linking the alleged anti-social behaviour of the detainee to a breach of public order.
The knowledgeable advocate further argued that it is not possible to draw a conclusion from the case’s facts that the detainee’s involvement in criminal cases had a detrimental effect on society’s social fabric and ultimately posed a threat to people’s ability to continue living their regular, everyday lives or that the detainee’s filing of criminal cases had completely upended and rendered dysfunctional the social system as a whole.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
AGP For the respondent The detention order was legitimately issued by the detaining authority in light of the facts of the case, and this Co. should uphold it. The State defended the detention order issued by the authority and claimed that the detenu is habitually engaging in the activity as described in Section 2(b) of the Act based on the information and evidence that were amassed during the course of the investigation and provided to the detenu.
Primarily, it is determined that the subjective satisfaction reached 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 given circumstances, it cannot be said that the accusations made against the detenu are relevant to bringing them within the purview of section 2(b) of the Act.
In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the detainee is a person who would fall 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 & menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus goes in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person. There is nothing in the record, aside from general statements, that indicates the detainee is acting in a way that could endanger the peace of the community.
simple filing of a FIR or FIRs by itself cannot be connected to a violation of maintaining public order, the authority cannot pursue a remedy under the Act, and no other pertinent and convincing evidence exists for exercising authority under section 3 (1) of the Act.
“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.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa