JIGNESH @ JIGO HASMUKHBHAI RANA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PERUSED the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and affidavit -in -reply filed by the detaining authority and heard learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Ms. Shah for the respondent -State. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 21.10.2013 passed by the respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by detaining the detenu as a "dangerous person" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.

(2.) LEARNED advocate for the detenu submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the ground that three offences registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide I -C.R. Nos. 229/2011, 242/2011 and 99/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 114 and 379, 114 and 379, 413 and 114 of I.P.C. respectively, by itself cannot bring the case of the detenu within the purview of definition "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Act. Learned advocate for the detenu further submits that illegal activity carried out as alleged cannot have any nexus or bearing with maintenance of public order and at the most it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except registration of FIRs, no other relevant or cogent material is available on record connecting the alleged anti -social activities of the detenu with breach of the public order.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the detenu, placing reliance on the decisions reported in the cases of (i) Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad (Vekaria) v. State of Gujarat reported in : 2000(3) GLR 2696; (ii) Ashokbhai Jivraj @Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat reported in : 2000 (1) GLH 393; and (iii) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, reported in : (1995) 3 SCC 237, submitted that the case on hand is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions. Learned counsel for the detenu further submits that it is not possible to hold in the facts of the present case that the activities of the detenu with reference to the criminal case/s had affected even tempo of the society, posing a threat to the very existence of the normal and routine life of the people at large or that on the basis of the criminal case/s, the detenu had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by the rule of law by disturbing public order.