TARUN RAJNIKANT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The present petitions are directed against orders of detention dated 02.02.2017 being No.PCB/DTN/PASA/61/2017 (In SCA/2268/2017), 01.02.2017 bearing No.PCB/DTN/PASA/60/2017 (In SCA/2298/2017), 01.02.2017 being No.PCB/DTN/PASA/52/2017 (In SCA/2378/2017), 01.02.2017 bearing No.PCB/DTN/PASA/55/2017 (In SCA/2427/2017), 01.02.2017 bearing No.PCB/DTN/PASA/57/2017 (In SCA/2455/2017), 01.02.2017 bearing No.PCB/DTN/PASA/54/2017 (In SCA/2456/2017), 01.02.2017 being No.PCB/DTN/PASA/56/2017 (In SCA/2507/2017) and 01.02.2017 being No.PCB/DTN/PASA/59/2017 (In SCA/2762/2017) passed by the respondent - detaining 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 petitioners - detenue of each petition as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

(3.) Learned advocates for the petitioners - detenue submit that the orders of detention impugned in these petitions deserve to be quashed and set aside on the ground that registration of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 384, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 65, 66A,B,C & D, 66B and D of the Information Technology Act (for short, the 'I.T.' Act) by itself cannot bring the case of the petitioners - detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocates for the petitioners - detenue submit 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 and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the petitioners - detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocates for the petitioners further submit that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the petitioners - detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the petitioners - detenue 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. Lastly, it is urged by the learned advocates for the petitioners - detenue to the effect that F.I.R/s. in question are primarily concerned with the act of commission of offence under the provisions of the I.T. Act and Indian Penal Code and for the alleged offences, criminal machinery is already moved and the petitioners are enlarged on bail by the competent Court. Considering the scope of provisions of the PASA Act, more particularly, provisions contained under Section 2(c) of the PASA Act, the offence under the I.T. Act is not covered under Section 2(c) of the PASA Act and, therefore, impugned orders are passed without considering provisions of law, more particularly, scope of Section 2(c) of the PASA Act.