Gujarat High Court
Mohd. Samir Abdulkadar Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 July, 2017
Author: S.H.Vora
Bench: S.H.Vora
C/SCA/13683/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13683 of 2017
==========================================================
MOHD. SAMIR ABDULKADAR SHAIKH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 21/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned A.G.P. Mr.Bharat Vyas waives service of Rule for the respondent State.
2. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner apprehends his detention under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, the PASA Act) on account of registration of an F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-99 of 2017 registered with Athwalines police station under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to the petitioner, except registration of the aforementioned FIR/s, no other material is available with the competent authority to detain the petitioner under the provisions of the PASA Act.
4. Upon perusal of the F.I.R/s. and considering the offence registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Jul 22 03:29:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/13683/2017 ORDER apprehension of the petitioner is well-founded and liberty of the petitioner is required to be protected.
5. The detaining authority is directed not to detain the petitioner on account of registration of the above offence/s till further order. The learned A.G.P. is also directed to place on record the detention order, if any, passed against the petitioner for Court's perusal as and when it is passed. However, a liberty is reserved in favour of the State to make request for early hearing.
6. It is made clear that the petitioner is protected only in respect of the FIR/s as mentioned hereinabove. The competent authority is at liberty to take suitable action against the petitioner in respect of offences, other than mentioned hereinabove, if any, registered and incriminating materials found to detain the petitioner. Direct service is permitted.
(S.H.VORA, J.) Hitesh Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Jul 22 03:29:52 IST 2017