Tag Archives: #Gujarathighcourt

TITLE:  Rahul Ajaykumar Singhal Versus AY Baloch Inspector of Police

Decided On-: August 22, 2023

1202 of 2023

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

INTRODUCTION-  

Two contempt cases have been filed, one by Rahul Ajaykumar Singhal and the other by Ashwini Kumar Singhal, both of whom have done so in accordance with “Section 10” of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971..

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Anil Kumar made a complaint, and it was submitted to the Economic Cell, Crime Branch, Surat. In response to the aforementioned complaint, the applicants were given a “samaj yadi” notice to appear before the D.C.B. Police Station, Economic Cell, Crime Branch, Surat City within two days. The applicants contend that by omitting all references to the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, the aforementioned notice gravely violates the rules and instructions of the Supreme Court. The applicants appeared before the investigating officer of the respondent’s economic cell at the D.C.B. Police Station after receiving this notice.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Renowned attorney Mr. Manish Gupta argues that it is difficult to understand why and on what grounds Respondent No. 1 issued the notice to appear before him since the applicant has been living peacefully in New Delhi for the last five years and does not have any associations with or business relationships with the complainant. A second notice is given to the applicant in a similar manner. According to the argument, the issuance of the notice was unnecessary because there was no FIR filed against the applicants at the time it was sent out.

Additionally, it has been argued that in actuality, the standing order, which is approved by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, specifies the issuance of notice. The court must begin contempt proceedings against the respondent No. 1 in accordance with “Section 10” of the Act’s rules

Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin has asserted that the present applications are misguided because the applicants were required to stay in person in light of the complaint within a window of two days in order to submit their response. The learned public prosecutor has claimed that, in reality, the said “samajyadi” is only issued for collecting responses or replies from the applicants and that it cannot in any way be referred to as a notice issued under Section 41A of the Cr. P.C.

The applicants are being prosecuted in this case in accordance with Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC. The maximum sentence for the offence under section 409 of the IPC is ten years in prison.

As a result, the provisions of Section 41(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. would not apply, the police authority would have the authority to make an arrest without a warrant, and the requirement for giving notice under Section 41A of the Cr. P.C. would not apply. However, since the applicants have been given anticipatory bails, the possibility of their arrest has not materialised. Investigation continues to be conducted.

“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:  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

TITLE:  Vishnudatt Shukla Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 19, 2023

12622 of 2023

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

INTRODUCTION-  

The current petition is intended to challenge a detention order issued on July 11, 2023 by the respondent, the detaining authority, in the course of exercising its authority under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 by holding the petitioner, who is a detenue as defined by Section 2(b) of the Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Detenu claimed that the impugned order of detention of the detenu required to be quashed and set aside because the detaining authority had made the decision to hold the detenu solely on the basis of the registration of three FIRs for offences under Sections 379(a) and 114 of the IPC, Sections 379(b) and 114 of the Penal Code, and Sections 420, 120(b) and 114 of the IPC, respectively. The detenu case cannot be used by itself to meet the requirements of section 2(c) of the Act. A 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. Additionally, other than witness statements and the filing of the aforementioned FIRs, there is no other substantial information on file that links the alleged anti-social behaviour of the detainee and does not qualify as a violation of public order. The learned advocate further argued that it was impossible to conclude from the facts of the case that the detenu’s involvement in criminal cases had affected and disrupted the social fabric of society, eventually posing a threat to the very survival of people’s normal and routine lives, or that the detenu’s registration of criminal cases had thrown the entire social apparatus into disarray and made it difficult for people to go about their daily lives in a normal and routine manner. 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

 AGP for the respondent was learned Considering the circumstances of the case, the detaining authority properly issued the order of detention, and the detention order deserves to be upheld by this Co. 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. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and considering the documents and material available on record of the case. It appears that the state authorities frequently disregard the aforementioned settled principle of law and pass orders without understanding that human freedom is unalienable and cannot be restricted or curtailed unless the detention is absolutely necessary and the detainee’s actions have an adverse impact on “public order.”

The authorities must take into account the characteristics of Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution when approving detention orders. Article 22 must be understood as an exception to Article 21 and can only be used in exceptional and rare circumstances. It cannot be read in isolation. The personal liberty protected by Article 21 is so sacred and ranks so highly on the scale of constitutional values, according to the Apex Court and this Court, that the detaining authority must demonstrate that the impugned detention is meticulously in accordance with the procedure stipulated by law. The impugned order of detention issued by the respondent’s detaining authority is therefore revoked and reversed as a result of the petition’s approval.

“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:  Virendrasinh Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On-: August 19, 2023

13347 of 2023

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

INTRODUCTION-  

The current petition is intended to challenge a detention order issued on July 11, 2023 by the respondent, the detaining authority, in the course of exercising its authority under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 by holding the petitioner, who is a detenue as defined by Section 2(b) of the Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The detenue claims that the order of detention in question should be quashed and overturned on the grounds that the filing of three First Information Reports (FIRs) for violations of Sections 65(a)(e), 116(b), 81, 83, and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act is insufficient to bring the detenue’s case within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. A 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. A 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. Additionally, other than witness statements and the filing of the aforementioned FIRs, there is no other substantial information on file that links the alleged anti-social behaviour of the detainee and does not qualify as a violation of public order. The eminent attorney further argued that it was impossible to conclude from the facts of the case that the detenu’s involvement in the criminal cases had disrupted the social fabric of society, eventually posing a threat to the very existence of people’s normal and routine lives, or that by registering the criminal cases, the detenu had placed the entire community at risk.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

 AGP for the respondent was learned Considering the circumstances of the case, the detaining authority properly issued the order of detention, and the detention order deserves to be upheld by this Co. 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.

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 handle the situation. This is based on hearing learned advocates for the parties and taking into account the documents and material available on record of the case.

It cannot be said that the detainee is a person who would fall within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act if that person has become a threat and a menace to the society to the point where they are upsetting the entire rhythm of society and putting all social apparatus in danger by disrupting public order. 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.

As a result, the current petition  has been approved, and the respondent’s detaining authority’s challenged detention order is revoked and overturned.

“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