PRAKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - detenue challenges the order of preventive detention passed by respondent No.1 herein- Police Commissioner, Surat City, dated 20.01.2020 against him in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act") being No.PCB/PASA/DTN/33/2020, which came to be executed upon the petitioner on very same day.

(3.) Mr. B. H. Solanki, learned advocate for Mr. Kamlesh Kachhavah, learned advocate for the petitioner - detenue submitted that for branding the petitioner - detenue as "Dangerous Person", as defined under Section 2(c) of the PASA Act, the detaining authority has relied on two offence being (1) C.R.No.I-111 of 2018 registered with Limbayat Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 323 , 324 , 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and (2) C.R.No.I-344/2019 registered with Limbayat Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 , 34 and 114 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. He has further submitted that aforesaid two offences are very personal in nature and against the individual. It is further submitted that reading the FIR itself from nowhere it can be concluded that the activities of the detenue is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He has further submitted that at best the activities may be in breach of law and order and not the public order. It is further submitted that the co-accused / co-detenue in the aforesaid two offences, was also detained vide order dated 22.01.2020. That the co-accused / co-detenue preferred the Special Civil Application No.6106 of 2020 challenging the order of preventive detention passed against him, which came to be allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and has set aside the order of preventive detention vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2020. He has further submitted that the reasons and grounds of detention in the case of the present detenue as also the co- detenue are more or less similar. Therefore, he has submitted that even on the ground of parity also the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside.