SURESHBHAI LAKHUBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present 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 has been wrongly arraigned in the prosecution in series of offence on account of private interse disputes and all these FIRs are substantially arising out of same kind of dispute, for which public at large is affected and, therefore, apprehending an action of detention, the petitioner has rushed down to this Court by way of present petition.

(3.) Mr.Pawan Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently contended that there is no germane material available except mere filing of FIR to pass an order of detention against the petitioner. It has been contended that out of 17 FIRs which have been registered over a period of time right from 1996 to 2018, only upto first 12 FIRs the offence has been registered; one detention order is passed somewhere in the year 2010 and the said detention has already been revoked by the authority. It has further been contended that so far as another 3 offences are concerned, the authority has passed an order of externment which also came to be quashed by this Court in a writ petition and decided in favour of the petitioner in the month of March,2018 and with respect to five offences, the complaints which are filed are over the period of 2015 to 2018 and all these offences which are alleged are under the provisions of the IPC and out of these five FIRs which are made the foundation of detention against the petitioner, 3 FIRs are purely related to private dispute and, therefore, the petitioner is apprehending that the authority will pass an order of detention. As a result of that, the petitioner has to approach this Court. It has been contended that number of FIRs are made the yardstick for passing an order of detention. On the contrary, this private dispute for which public at large is affected, the authority cannot exercise the stringent powers of detention. It has further been contended that last few FIRs which are lodged, narration thereof would clearly indicate that it has nothing to do with public order or danger to the public in any maner. To analyse this, learned advocate for the petitioner has given two lists, by which number of offences against which the petitioner is facing this apprehending action is produced on record. Relying upon those documents, learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that no case is made out of passing an order of detention, in any manner.