0

Simple disruption of law and order that results in disorder is not always enough to justify action under the Act : Gujarat High Court

TITLE:  Rupabhai Ghelabhai Gamara Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 19, 2023

13369 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia & Mr. M.R Mengdey

INTRODUCTION-  

The purpose of this particular petition is to contest the respondent’s detention order, which was issued in accordance with section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. According to section 2(b) of the Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The detenue contends that the detention order in question should be revoked on the grounds that the filing of two FIRs for violations of Sections 65(a)(e), 116(b), 81, and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act is insufficient to qualify the detenue’s case as a violation of Section 2(b) of the Act. A knowledgeable lawyer for the petitioner further argued that any illegal activity that is likely to be committed or is alleged to have been committed cannot be linked to or have anything to do with upholding public order; at most, it can be seen as 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 eminent advocate further argued that it was impossible to conclude from the facts of this case that the detenu’s involvement in criminal cases had disrupted society’s social fabric, posing a threat to the very existence of people’s normal, everyday lives, or that the detenu had placed the entire community at risk by registering criminal cases.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

 Respondent State supported the detention order made by the authority and argued that enough information and evidence discovered during the course of the investigation and provided to the detainee indicate that the detainee is accustomed to engaging in the activity as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. Given the circumstances of the case, the detaining authority passed the order of detention in a proper manner, and the detention order merits being upheld. Since the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot affect public order as required by the Act and other applicable penal laws are sufficient to address the situation, it is first determined that the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid, and in accordance with the law. 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. If not required in any other circumstance, the court directed that the detainee must be released right away.

“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

 

Click here to view judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *