Tag Archives: #dentention

 

TITLE:  Dharmesh Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 19, 2023

12965 of 2023

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

INTRODUCTION-  

The current petition is intended to challenge the detention order issued by the respondent – the detaining authority – while acting within the scope of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, section 3(1), by holding the petitioner-detenu, as that term is defined in section 2(c) of the Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the detenue, the filing of three FIRs for violations of Sections 65(E), 116(b), 98(2), and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Sections 65(E), 116(b), and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, and Sections 65(E), 116(b), and Sections 65(A)(A) and 116(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act by themselves cannot bring the  case within the ambit of the Unlawful activity that is 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 same time, learned advocate for the petitioner further argued that had  any alleged illegal activity 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

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

 The respondent Considering the circumstances of the case, the detaining authority properly issued the order of detention, and the detention order deserves to be upheld. The State supported the detention order passed by the authority and argued that sufficient information and evidence discovered during the course of the investigation, which was also supplied to the detenu, indicate that the detenu is in the habit of engaging in the activity as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. 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 situation. PASA detention orders are frequently issued, relying on outdated information and failing to distinguish between “law and order” and “public order” issues as specified in the PASA Act.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

 

Click here to view judgment

 

TITLE:  Shankarbhai Dhirubhai Vaghela v State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 11, 2023

10603 of 2023

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

INTRODUCTION-  

The current petition is intended to challenge the detention order issued by the respondent – the detaining authority – while acting within the scope of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, section 3(1), by holding the petitioner-detenu, as that term is defined in section 2(c) of the Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Detenu stated that the detaining authority’s order of detention should be reversed and set aside because it was based solely on the filing of two FIRs, one for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 337, 504, 509, and 427 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, and the other for offences under Sections 323, 406, 420, 504, and By themselves, sections 25(1-A) and 25(1-B) of the Arms Act cannot bring the detenu case within the ambit of the definition under section 2(c) of the Act.

Furthermore, it was argued that it was impossible to conclude from the facts of the case that the detenu’s involvement in criminal cases had disrupted society’s social fabric, posing a threat to the very continuation of people’s daily lives as they know it, or that the detenu’s registration of criminal cases had thrown the entire social system into disarray, making it difficult for people to go about their normal, everyday lives. Additionally, it is claimed that the detaining authority is unaware that the petitioner has been released on bail for all of his or her offences.

 COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The 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 by Section 2(c) of the Act. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the detaining authority made the right decision and the detention order deserves to be upheld, according to the respondent-State. 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, In order to bring the detenu within the ambit of section 2(c) of the Act, it is not possible to say that the situation or the accusations made against the detenu are germane. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the detainee is a person who would fall within the meaning of section 2(c) 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 and that all social apparatus goes in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person.

In view of above, we are inclined to allow this petition, because simpliciter 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 (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

 

 

Click here to view judgement