SATISHBHAI BHIKHABHAI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner against whom there are six cases uptill now filed, since the year 2015, for an offence under the Prohibition Act, has filed this application apprehending his preventive detention. From the activities carried on by the petitioner, consistently, prove that he deals in prohibition articles. The last offence which is registered in the month of January 2019, he was arrested and released on bail as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner by an order dated 02.03.2019. Though this petition is affirmed on 25.03.2019, it has been circulated on 29th March, 2019 and thereafter, consistently learned advocate for the petitioner has requested for an adjournment.

(2.) It is clear that for one of the offence, the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.17583 of 2017, prima-facie, without disclosing before the Court that earlier two cases than that case filed against him. Since till 22.01.2018, there was no proposal for detaining the petitioner at the relevant time based only on that FIR projected before the Court to be solitary offence vide C.R.No.365 of 2017, the said petition was disposed of with a direction that petitioner should not be detained solely based on that FIR. As such, the consistent criminal activity is continued even after the disposal of the said petition, which is clear from subsequent two other cases for the similar offence registered against the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. M. R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not found in possession of any prohibition article and not found even at the place in some of the cases. At the same time, he has further contended that in some of the cases, no muddamal is recovered from him. He has further contended that he has not been even named in some of the cases. He has further contended that registration of offence will not disturb the public order. He has further contended that out of six cases, four cases are stale cases. Based on such arguments, the learned advocate for the petitioner requested this Court to entertain this petition and grant him relief.