Gujarat High Court
Saajidkhan @ Pappanbhai Sabirkhan ... vs State Of Gujarat on 22 December, 2020
Author: A. C. Rao
Bench: A.C. Rao
C/SCA/12586/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12586 of 2020
==========================================================
SAAJIDKHAN @ PAPPANBHAI SABIRKHAN MOGAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIMESH M PATEL(6780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RAJVI N PATEL(9620) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. RAO
Date : 22/12/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties through videoconference.
2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 21.08.2020 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 23 23:13:18 IST 2020 C/SCA/12586/2020 ORDER contended that only four FIRs are registered against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely arrayed in all the FIRs whereby all the FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner for the dispute which is private and personal affair having arisen from the financial transactions made by the petitioner, in good faith, in favour of the informantcomplainant. It is contended that the respondent No.2 herein simply relying upon the above referred complaint, has passed an order of detention against the petitioner ignoring the fact that the same does not have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order. In the detention order though it has been mentioned four different occasions when the alleged act is committed but no offence is registered. It does not have any bearing in the order. The detaining authority has to satisfy that the alleged anti social activity of the detenue affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of the public order.
4. While the learned AGP appearing for the State Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 23 23:13:18 IST 2020 C/SCA/12586/2020 ORDER has drawn my attention towards the detention order, wherein it is stated that in the report itself it is stated that after registration of alleged offences the present petitioner had given threat. It is stated that the petitioner is lending money illegally and if money is not returned in time, he is harassing and assaulting the people. Thereby threatening the public at large, not maintaining law and order. The learned AGP has contended that the petitioner is a criminal person and due to his fear people are not giving any complaint against him. The learned AGP has contended that all the offences are committed in public place and due to his conduct crowd had gathered and public peace was disturbed.
5. It appears that the petitioner is in the business of money lending and he has threatened the witnesses and there are many witnesses who have submitted that in public place the petitioner had demanded money. He had threatened the witnesses to kill them. There are many instances reported in the newspaper that due to harassment of money lenders, Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 23 23:13:18 IST 2020 C/SCA/12586/2020 ORDER many persons have committed suicide. Considering the seriousness of the offence and considering the above judgment, I am of the view that the petitioner is a dangerous person.
6. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of Rajubhai Ranabhai Odedra vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2020 GLR 1644, wherein, in para34 it is observed as under :
"Whether or not the detaining authority was apprised of the entire criminal antecedents of the appellant is also not relevant inasmuch it is by now well settled that even a single case depending upon the gravity and nature of the offence would be sufficient to sustain a detention order."
7. Thus, from the order of the detention, it reveals that the petitioner has used lethal weapon by administering threat to the complainant and witnesses at public place and in view of detaining authority it has resulted not only into breach of law and order but also public order and, therefore, detaining authority by applying its mind arrived at subjective satisfaction, cannot be said to have been vitiated. Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 23 23:13:18 IST 2020 C/SCA/12586/2020 ORDER Further, the detention of a person is not to punish him but to prevent him from doing so in future. The basis of detention is the substantial of the execution of the reasonable probability to a likelyhood of a detenue acting in a similar manner by his act and preventing him by detaining from doing the same. The power of preventive detention is precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to offence. It is not parallel proceedings. There is a very thin line between question of law and order situation and a public order situation and some time, the acts of a person relating to law and order situation turn into the situation of a public order situation. The conduct of collecting ransom amount and not paying fair to the autorickshaw driver clearly shows the activity of the person likely to disturb the public order and peace. If such person moves freely in society, no one can live with peace.
8. Under the circumstance, I am of the view that the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 23 23:13:18 IST 2020 C/SCA/12586/2020 ORDER authority is based on the actual facts and does not require any interference. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the present petition requires to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed and the order of detention dated 21.08.2020 passed by the respondent - detaining authority is hereby confirmed.
Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(A. C. RAO, J) MAYA S. CHAUHAN//BEENA//DOLLY Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 23 23:13:18 IST 2020