VIJAY @ KADIYO ASHOKBHAI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is wrongly arraigned in the crime and has been wrongly roped in criminal offences on account of some animosity against him. The petitioner is peace living citizen as has been contended is a 'dangerous person'. Looking to the activities of the petitioner, the authorities are intercepted to process any further in the direction of detaining the petitioner under the provisions of PASA. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is arraigned only in four offences, which are enumerated in paras:3 and 4 of the petition and except these offences, petitioner is involved in any kind of activity which can brand him as a 'dangerous person'. Pursuant to the notice having been issued by this Court, the Police Inspector of Bapunagar Police Station has filed detailed affidavit and has clarified the track record of the petitioner. It has been contended that as many as in 18 offences, the petitioner is involved in similar kind of activities and the petitioner is playing an active role in committing offence. Looking to the track record, petitioner has been able to be prevented by the authority under ordinary law and, therefore, the order of detention is tried to be processed and, therefore, by way of submitting a detailed affidavit, an attention is drawn about the fact under which circumstance present petition is brought before this Court.

(3.) After carrying out draft amendment as per order dated 05.04.2018, matter has come up for hearing today before this Court wherein Mr.Nisarg Shah, learned advocate has vehemently contended that irrespective of offences in which petitioner is arraigned, the number of offences are sufficient enough to treat the person as 'dangerous person'. Simply because on earlier occasion, the petitioner was roped in such activity cannot be said to be of such a nature which can brand the person as 'dangerous person' and, therefore, since the tenor of affidavit in reply is such in which petitioner will be detained at pre-execution stage, the petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It has further been contended that even after 18 offences, three previous detention order and two times externment, four offences which are levelled against the petitioner are seriously apprehending the petitioner to be detained and, therefore also, the petitioner has justifiably approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Shah, learned advocate has vehemently contended that even looking to the FIRs which are made the base and foundation of processing against the petitioner in which there is no role played by the petitioner and it is only on the basis of earlier track record of the petitioner, authority is inclined to process against the petitioner and, therefore, under such a situation, allowing the authority to proceed ahead against the petitioner under the provisions of PASA is nothing but a travesty of justice. Learned advocate has further contended that at pre-execution stage, High Court is entitled to examine the issue and exercise of power by the authority and, therefore, this is a right time where the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. By drawing attention to provisions contained under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA' for short), a contention is raised by learned advocate that no case is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, there is hardly any justifiable reason to proceed against the petitioner. No other submissions have been made.