MOHAMAD AMIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) The present petition is directed against order of detention dtd. 23/2/2023 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 3 (1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenu as defined under Sec. 2 (c) of the Act.

(3.) Mr.Pawan Barot, learned advocate for the detenu submitted that the impugned order of detention of the detenu requires to be quashed and set aside because the detaining authority has passed order of detention solely on the ground of registration of two FIRs, first for the offences under Ss. 186, 189, 452, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 (1) of the Gujarat Police Act and second for the offences punishable under Sec. 504 and 506 (2) of IPC respectively by itself cannot bring the case of the detenu within the purview of definition under Sec. 2 (c) of the Act. He also submitted that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention by treating the detenu as "dangerous person" under Sec. 2 (c) of the Act, however, said action of the authority is without application of mind. He submitted that for bringing someone in the definition of "dangerous person" under Sec. 2 (c) of the Act, the offences alleged against him must fall under Chapter XII, XVI and XVII of IPC and, in the present case, none of the offences are falling under aforesaid Chapters. He also submitted that for branding someone as "dangerous person", there must be more than two offences registered against him. He also submitted that from the offences alleged against present detenu, first FIR is for the offence under Sec. 452 i.e. "house trespass", which falls under Chapter XVII of IPC, however, the said offence is registered in the year 2021 and the detaining authority has taken it into consideration after one and a half year, which is not permissible. So far as second FIR is concerned, the offence registered against the detenu would not fall under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of IPC. He, therefore, submitted that the order of detention is bad in law and requires to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that illegal activity 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 most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenu would not fall under the category of breach of public order. Learned advocate further submitted that it is not possible to hold, on the basis of the facts of the present case, that activity of the detenu with respect to the criminal cases had affected and disturbed the social fabric of society, eventually which would become threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of registration of criminal cases, the detenu 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.