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, Ahmedabad City, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The petition, filed on behalf of the detenue Nasimbanu @ Aapa Gulhasan Mohamdsral Kureshi, contested the validity of the detention order dated 21 January 2026 that described her as a "bootlegger" and ordered preventive custody.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the material before the detaining authority did not support the requisite subjective satisfaction that the detenue’s activities were prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The bench observed that preventive detention is an extraordinary power which "must be used sparingly" and emphasised that ordinary criminal remedies should not be circumvented where they suffice. 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 High Court directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith if she was not required in any other case and made the rule absolute.

Background

The detenue was taken into custody pursuant to a detention order of 21.01.2026 alleging engagement in activities as a "bootlegger" as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985. The grounds of detention relied on three criminal cases registered at Vejalpur Police Station between 19.08.2025 and 19.10.2025, under provisions of the Prohibition Act. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no material to demonstrate disturbance of public health, public order or public tranquility and that the order was passed mechanically without application of mind; it was noted that the detenue was being held in Bhuj Jail. The State, through the APP, contended that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities affected society at large and that preventive detention was warranted on the basis of antecedents.

The Bench examined the detention order and statutory definition of "bootlegger" and concluded that the offences cited did not, on the material placed, bear upon maintenance of public order. The Court drew on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and other precedents that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and should not supplant ordinary criminal procedure, particularly where bail could be cancelled or challenged by the State. Applying those principles, the High Court found the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority unsustainable and quashed the impugned order. The Court permitted direct service and ordered release if no other legal exigency existed.

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1323 of 2026 Case Title: NASIMBANU @AAPA GULHASAN MOHAMDSRAL KURESHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): ADITYA R PARIKH (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): MS MONALI H BHATT, APP

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Date of Judgment: 19/02/2026 Order: Petition allowed; detention order dated 21.01.2026 quashed; detenue to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

A bench of Justices N.S. Sanjay Gowda and D.M. Vyas heard a petition challenging a preventive detention order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City, detaining Arjunsingh Kirpalsingh Sardar (Sikligar) as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The petition, filed through the detenue's father, disputed the legality and validity of the detention order and alleged absence of material showing disturbance to public order or application of mind by the detaining authority.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order. The Court held that the material on record was insufficient to support the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that the detenue's activities were "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." The Court reiterated that preventive detention was an extraordinary power which "must be used sparingly" and was not 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 judgment also quoted authoritative exposition that "the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly."

Background
The detenue was taken into preventive custody by order of the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City, on 17 January 2026 on the ground that he was a "bootlegger" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985. The detention order relied on two earlier criminal cases registered between 24.12.2023 and 30.11.2025 under various provisions of the Prohibition Act and IPC offences including falsification and forgery sections. The petitioner contended that no material demonstrated disturbance of public health, public order or public tranquility and that the detention order was passed mechanically and without application of mind. The State opposed the petition on the basis that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities affected society and that the detaining authority had properly considered antecedents and past activities.

The Court examined the detention grounds and the definition of "bootlegger" under Section 2(b). Relying on precedent, including the Supreme Court's observations that preventive detention is an extraordinary power and that ordinary criminal remedies (such as cancellation of bail) should be employed where appropriate, the High Court concluded the material before the detaining authority did not justify preventive detention. The Court found the offences relied upon bore no sufficient nexus to maintenance of public order and that subjective satisfaction was unsustainable. The petition was allowed, the detention order dated 17.01.2026 was quashed, and the detenue was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The Court permitted direct service and made the Rule absolute.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1012 of 2026
Case Title: ARJUNSINGH KIRPALSINGH SARDAR (SIKLIGAR) THRO SINKLIKAR KIRPALSING KOTARSING Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Bharatkumar A. Desai (Advocate)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, APP