LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-105

BHARATBHAI @BHURO DEVRAJBHAIT RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On August 22, 2014
Bharatbhai @Bhuro Devrajbhait Rathod Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2014 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4002 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant - original petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant - original petitioner is detained under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act,1985 by order dated 31.12.2013 by the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City. Along with the order of detention, the appellant -original petitioner has been served with the grounds of detention. As per the said grounds of detention, the appellant has been branded as dangerous person since two FIRs have been registered against the appellant being CR.No.II -10 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1 -B)(A) and 29 of the Arms Act with Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot City. In the said offence, the police recovered two pistols, four live cartridges, two blank magazines and one mobile phone and at present the said case is under the investigation. Another FIR being CR.No.3094 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 25(1 -B)(A) of the Arms Act with Paddhari Police Station, Rajkot Rural. In the said offence, the police recovered eighteen live cartridges of twelve bore weapon, country -made pistol, two cartridges.

(3.) CONSIDERING all the material along with the grounds of detention and having arrived at the subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention against the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is in jail at Surat. Being aggrieved the appellant -original petitioner preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel appearing for both the sides, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.