Joginder @ Kabir Santoksingh Sikligar vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 27 August, 2014

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Joginder @ Kabir Santoksingh Sikligar vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 27 August, 2014

Bench: A.J.Desai

        C/SCA/6511/2014                                   JUDGMENT




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6511 of 2014



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

================================================================

1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
    the judgment ?

2   To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3   Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
    judgment ?

4   Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
    to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
    order made thereunder ?

5   Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

================================================================
      JOGINDER @ KABIR SANTOKSINGH SIKLIGAR....Petitioner(s)
                           Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR S M SOJATWALA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS AMITA SHAH AGP for the Respondents
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

                           Date : 27/08/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT

1 This petition is directed against the order of detention dated Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/6511/2014 JUDGMENT 27.03.2014 passed by respondent No.2, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short" the Act) by detaining the detenue as a "dangerous person" as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the petitioner is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the so called three cases and the said cases are registered at Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara City, being CR No. 1 of 2013 registered on 17.2.2013 for the offenses punishable under Section 454, 457 and 380 of the IPC, CR No. I197/2013 registered on 12.8.2013 for the offenses punishable under Sections 454, 457 and 380 of the IPC, CR No. I 248 of 2013 registered on 8.10.2013 for the offenses punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380 and 511 of the IPC and CR No. I41 of 2014 registered on 1.2.2014 for the offenses punishable under Sections 457, 380, 114 and 511 of the IPC.

2 Learned Advocate Mr. S.M. Sojatwala, learned Advocate, for the detenue submits that registration of FIRs' itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and therefore the public order. The order of detention is assailed by the detenue on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition, however, learned counsel for the detenue submits that the alleged grounds of detention that the detenue is a "dangerous person" and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that the detaining authority has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti social activities of the detenue would adversely affect or likely to affect the maintenance of the public order. It is further Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/6511/2014 JUDGMENT submitted that merely because the criminal offenses are registered against the detenue, he cannot be detained under the provisions of the Act, unless as laid down under subsection (2) of Section3 of the Act, his activities as a dangerous person affect adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Lastly he submitted that coaccused has already been released.

3 Learned AGP Ms. Amita Shah for the respondents supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that the detenue is a "dangerous person" and sufficient material and evidence were found during the course of investigation which were also supplied to the detenue itself indicate that the detenue is in habit of indulging into activities as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act and considering the fact of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of FIR's would go to show that the detenue had, in fact, indulged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing the law and order and in view of sufficient material before the detaining authority to pass the order of detention, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law inasmuch as the offenses alleged in the three FIRs cannot have any bearing on the public order since the law of the land i.e. Indian Penal Code Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/6511/2014 JUDGMENT and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations as have been levelled against the detenue cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenue within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Act unless and until the material is there to make out a case that the person concerned has become a threat and a menace to the society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that the whole social apparatus is in peril disturbing the public order at the instance of such person. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of Police, as reported at AIR 1989 SC 491 and the decision of this Court dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J] in Letters Patent Appeal No.2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police), the Court is of the opinion that the activities of the detenue cannot be said to be dangerous to the maintenance of the public order and at the most fall under the maintenance of "law and order".

5 In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of detention dated 27.03.2014 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.) pnnair Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court