Gujarat High Court
Raaylabhai @ Rahul Kaalubhai Palaas vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 GUJ 956
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath, Bhargav D. Karia
C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 103 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11580 of 2020
==========================================================
RAAYLABHAI @ RAHUL KAALUBHAI PALAAS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AR SHAH FOR MR VISHAL S AWTANI(7913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 24/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. We have heard Mr.A.R.Shah, Advocate for Mr.Vishal Awtani, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11580 of 2020, whereby the writ petition challenging the order of preventive detention was dismissed.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 26 22:59:02 IST 2021 C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are only five cases registered against the appellant. First being a case under Sections 457, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR dated 27.08.2019, the second is about an offence under Sections 457, 380 and and 114 of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR dated 10.09.2019, the third being a case under Sections 457, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR dated 15.09.2019, the fourth is about an offence under Sections 457, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR dated 21.09.2019 and the fifth being a case under Sections 457, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code based on an FIR dated 26.09.2019. Apart from it, there is no other material against the appellant. The invoking of jurisdiction under the preventive detention law is totally unjustified as there was neither any disturbance of public order nor the appellant can be said to be a dangerous person. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the said five cases and he is already on bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is in custody since Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 26 22:59:02 IST 2021 C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER 20.08.2020. It is next submitted that a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2020 passed in the case of Vijay Alias Ballu Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Patni vs. State of Gujarat, being Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2020, squarely covers the case of the present appellant.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the order of detention is fully justified and the detaining authority after due satisfaction has passed the said order. It is also submitted by Ms.Pathak that apart from the five First Information Reports, there were two other statements recorded in camera and as such the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity in dismissing the petition. The learned Single Judge after dealing with the entire material on record declined to interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in holding that the appellant was a dangerous person. This Court as such may not interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal. Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 26 22:59:02 IST 2021 C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER
5. In the judgment dated 31.08.2020 in the case of Vijay alias Ballu (supra), the issue relating to public order and law and order problem had been dealt with in detail. Law of preventive detention has to be construed not as in an ordinary criminal proceedings of detaining or arresting a person who is said to have committed crime where the procedure is provided and the remedy is available. However, the law of preventive detention is to be strictly followed as per the statute and the settled law on the point. In the present case, we find that the five FIRs related to an offence of extorting money from people. By no stretch of imagination can we hold that such incidents could describe a person as a dangerous person.
6. The other two statements recorded in camera could be of help to the detaining authority in passing the detention order where at least prima facie the detenue could be said to be a dangerous person on account of his known criminal activities. The said view has been discussed and ratio laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay alias Ballu (supra) after considering in detail the law on the point.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 26 22:59:02 IST 2021 C/LPA/103/2021 ORDER
7. We are accordingly of the view that the order of detention cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.12.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.11580 of 2020 is set aside. The detention order dated 20.08.2020 is quashed. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 26 22:59:02 IST 2021