NAMDEV KRISHNABHAI MORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State.

(2.) Mr. O. I. Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that to brand the petitioner as a 'Dangerous Person' under Section 2(c) of the PASA Act, the authority has relied on three offences registered at (i) C.R.No.I-102/2019 with Sami Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections, 323, 324, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the G.P. Act registered on 29.10.2019, (ii) C.R.No.II-204 of 2019 with Sami Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 294(b) and 506(2) of IPC registered on 24.11.2019 and (iii) C.R.No.II-177/2019 with Sami Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 294-B and 506(2) of IPC registered on 28.09.2019. Pursuant to the registration of these offences, the applicant came to be arrested on 17.11.2019 and came to be released on bail vide order dated 19.11.2019 whereas in the second case arrested on 24.11.2019 and released on bail by an order dated 05.12.2019 and in a third case, the applicant came to be arrested on 04.10.2019 and came to be released on bail on 04.10.2019 as reflected from the order of detention. He has also submitted that the registration of offences under the IPC and record of that case simplicitor will not reflect breach of public order. However, he has submitted that mere registration of FIR/s for the offence under the IPC by itself would not render the petitioner liable in absence of any credible material to conclude that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He has submitted that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is vitiated, and therefore, order of preventive detention is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) It is further submitted that that if the activities of the petitioner were such, he is required to be preventively detained, the authority would have detained him without any further loss of time after offences registered, and therefore, it is submitted that there is delay in passing the order of detention vitiating the subjective satisfaction recorded by the authority. It is submitted that the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in three cases on 04.10.2019, 19.11.2019 and 05.12.2019 whereas the order of detention has come to be passed on 25.01.2020. In short, it is submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated on the ground of delay in passing the order independently, if not cumulatively, and therefore, it is required to be set aside.