VIJAY @ DEEPU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PERUSED the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr. Bhatt for the respondent -State. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 14.10.2013 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 detenue as a "dangerous person" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.

(2.) LEARNED advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the ground that one offences registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide I -C.R. No. 232 of 2013 for the offences punishable u/s. 397 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Act. Learned advocate for the detenue 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 FIR/s, no other relevant or cogent material is available on record connecting the alleged anti -social activities of the detenue with breach of the public order.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the detenue, 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 detenue further submits that it is not possible to hold in the facts of the present case that the activities of the detenue 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 detenue 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.