RAMMOHAN BIJENDRA RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner at the Bar is that while formulating the grounds of detention, respondent No. 2 as detaining authority has failed to consider the less drastic remedy like cancellation of bail under Section 437 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That thereby on account of the said non-application of mind, the impugned order has been vitiated.

(3.) On scrutiny of the grounds of detention, it appears that respondent No. 2 has considered that the petitioner-detenu was likely to get bail in a registered case and thereafter he was likely to continue his antisocial activity and thereby it is necessary to detain the petitioner under the PASA. That the said observation made by the detaining authority suggests clear non-application of mind to the less drastic remedy available under Section 437 (5) of the Cr. P. C. That such non-application has vitiated the impugned detention order. Learned AGP could not explain or rebut the said contention and as such, the petition is required to be allowed on that count.