Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Against Alleged Bootlegger and Directs Immediate Release

A division bench of Justices N.S. Sanjay Gowda and D.M. Vyas heard a challenge to a preventive detention order passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, which detained the petitioner as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The petition, filed through the detenue's wife, contested the legality and validity of the detention order dated 06.01.2026.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the material on record did not support a subjective satisfaction that the detenue's activities were prejudicial to public order. The Court noted established principles that the law of preventive detention was an "extraordinary power" that had to be exercised sparingly and not used as a substitute for ordinary criminal remedies. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that, the material available on record are not sufficient for holding that the alleged activities of the detenue have either affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law." The bench also relied on Supreme Court authority that "the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly."

Background

The detenue, Niteshbhai @ Niteshkumar @ Niku, was detained under an order dated 06.01.2026 by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, on the ground that he acted as a "bootlegger" as defined in Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The detaining order referred to one prosecution registered on 17.12.2025 under Sections 65(E), 98(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act at Jahangirpura police station. The petitioner contended before the High Court that there was no material to show disturbance of public health, public order or public tranquility and that the order was passed mechanically without application of mind.

The State opposed the petition and relied on the detenue's antecedents, asserting that he was a habitual offender whose activities affected society at large and that preventive detention was necessary to forestall further prejudice to public order. The High Court examined the detaining authority's grounds and the record, and concluded that a single criminal case did not establish the degree of threat to public order required to sustain preventive detention. The Court applied settled constitutional and precedential principles, including citations from Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868) and earlier Supreme Court dicta cautioning that preventive detention should not be resorted to where ordinary criminal process, including cancellation of bail, would suffice. The bench directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith if he was not required in any other case, quashed the detention order dated 06.01.2026, and made the rule absolute. No interim directions beyond immediate release were required; direct service was permitted.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/SCR.A/505/2026
Case Title: NITESHBHAI @ NITESHKUMAR @ NIKU S/O JAYANTILAL @ JAYANTIBHAI MODI THROUGH PURVIBEN NITESHKUMAR MODI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR JAGDHISH SATAPARA (5524); MR JITENDRA D PATEL (11288)
For the Respondent(s): MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP