Gujarat High Court
Maheshbhai @ Montu Devsibhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 5 July, 2019
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
C/SCA/9188/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9188 of 2019
==========================================================
MAHESHBHAI @ MONTU DEVSIBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.RASHESH RINDANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 05/07/2019
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr.Y.N.Ravani, learned advocate for the petitioner. He drew the attention of the Court that so far as, in proximate time, there are two cases filed against him being C.R.No.I -145 of 2018 registered with Vadaj Police Station which pertains to mob-lynching case where his involvement is, only presence in the CCTV footage of the area. In this regard, he submitted before the police, when he appeared pursuant to an order of anticipatory bail in connection with another offence registered at C.R.No. I 254 of 2018, that offence is registered while he was in custody in earlier case. The said case is registered for offences under Sections 406, 420,467, 468, 471, 114 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code,1860 registered with Vadaj Police Station because his father was Secretary of Society at the relevant time and he being the son, he was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in mob-lynching case by an order dated Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:34:52 IST 2019 C/SCA/9188/2019 ORDER 23.11.2018, thereafter also in connection with another offence which is registered against him while he was in custody, competent Court has already released on anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.12.2018. Pursuant to one of the condition therein, the petitioner has already provided his permanent residential address as also mobile number and landline number whichever is available. Pursuant to an order of anticipatory bail, he appeared before the police his statement was recored and he has already been released on anticipatory bail showing his arrest on 28.12.2018. He has further submitted that even if these two cases are considered neither of them affects public order independently. Affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
Mr.Rashesh Rindani, learned AGP submits that there is an order already passed directing the detention of the petitioner dated 11.04.2019. He has further submitted that one of the co-accused with the petitioner in mob-lynching case, against whom other case is also found, he was detained pursuant to an order dated 02.03.2019. Mr.Rashesh Rindnai has produced a copy of detention order for perusal of the Court. Mr.Rashesh Rindani, learned AGP is directed to produce a copy of detention order as also annexures alongwith it and support the same by filing an affidavit if at all detaining authority wants.
So far as mob-lynching case is concerned, there are several accused approximately 23 in numbers, if that is the case and activities taken into consideration for preventive detention of the petitioner, other atleast 20 persons have not been detained pursuant to preventive detention order. Second Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:34:52 IST 2019 C/SCA/9188/2019 ORDER case which is registered against the petitioner while he was in custody in connection with the earlier offence, has nothing to do with any disturbance of public order as it is the case based on documents, which the petitioner has not committed as claimed. The petitioner has made out prima facie case to interfere at this pre-execution stage.
The petitioner shall not be detained pursuant to an order of preventive detention dated 11.04.2019 till further orders.
Hence, RULE returnable on 04.09.2019. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the Respondent - State.
Direct service, qua rest of the respondents, is permitted.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) VARSHA DESAI Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:34:52 IST 2019