BOBYKUMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Kishan H. Daiya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State, through Video Conferencing.

(2.) The present petition has been filed seeking direction for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 03.01.2020 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat in exercise of powers conferred under sub- section (2) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under sub-clause (b) section 2 of the Act. The petitioner is detained since 03.01.2020.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner-detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside. The detaining authority is not justified in ordering the detention of the petitioner-detenue on the ground that his detention is absolutely necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention detaining the petitioner as bootlegger on the ground of single offence registered with Ichhapor Police Station being CR No.III-545 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 65(a) and (e), 81 and 116B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the registration of the offence itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of life of the community or public order. Except the provisions of the Act, there was no other material before respondent No.2 whereby it can reasonably be inferred that the petitioner is a detenue within the meaning of sub-clause (b) of section 2 of the Act. Further, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.