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, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, whereby the detenue was classified as a “bootlegger”. The petition, filed on behalf of the detenue by his brother, contested the legality and validity of the detention dated 13.01.2026.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the material on record did not justify satisfaction that the detenue’s activities were “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. The Bench noted that preventive detention was an extraordinary power and could not be invoked on slender or mechanical grounds. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “9. It is well settled that the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature. The power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution itself, under Article 22(3)(b). However, this Court has emphasized in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu that the power of preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and, therefore, must be applied as such, as an exception to the main rule and only in rare cases.” The Court further observed that “the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.”

Background

The detenue, Pankajkumar s/o Bhaveshbhai Dodiya, was detained under an order dated 13.01.2026 as a “bootlegger” as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985. The detention order relied on a FIR registered on 06.01.2026 at Laskana police station for offences under Sections 65(A)(E), 116(B) and 81 of the Prohibition Act. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the detaining authority had no material showing 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, submitting that the detenue was a habitual offender and that his antecedents warranted preventive detention to avert threats to public order.

The Bench examined the grounds of detention and reproduced the statutory definition of “bootlegger”. Relying on precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (cited in the judgment), the High Court emphasised that preventive detention should not be used to circumvent ordinary criminal law remedies such as cancellation of bail and that detention based on the same charge pending trial required strict scrutiny. Finding that the order rested primarily on a single FIR and did not demonstrate how the alleged acts affected or were likely to affect public order, the Court held that the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction was not legally sustainable.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the impugned detention order dated 13.01.2026 was quashed, and the detenue was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1253 of 2026
Case Title: MR. PANKAJKUMAR S/O BHAVESHBHAI DODIYA THROUGH MR. VISHAL BHAVESHBHAI DODIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR DIPESH D SONI (9996) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
For the Respondent(s): MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 24

A division bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice D.M. Vyas heard a challenge to a preventive detention order passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, detaining the petitioner as a “bootlegger” under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The petition, filed through the detenue’s daughter, contested the legality and validity of the detention dated 13.01.2026.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the material before the detaining authority was insufficient to sustain subjective satisfaction that the detenue’s activities were “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” The Court observed that the order was based on a single criminal case and that those offences did not, on the available record, have a bearing on public order. The judgment relied on Supreme Court authority stressing the exceptional character of preventive detention, quoting that “the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly.” 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 further quoted precedent cautioning that “the law of preventive detention should not be used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution.”

Background

The detenue Firoz @ Salim Hasambhai Shaikh was detained by order dated 13.01.2026 as a “bootlegger” under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The detention order referenced a criminal case registered on 12.12.2025 at Shaher Kotda Police Station for offences under sections of the Prohibition Act. The petitioner contended that there was no material showing disturbance of public health, public order or public tranquility and that the detaining authority acted mechanically without proper application of mind. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities adversely affected the community and that preventive detention was therefore warranted.

The High Court examined the detention grounds and reproduced Section 2(b)’s definition of “bootlegger.” The bench found that the detaining authority had placed reliance on a single criminal case and had not shown how those offences affected public order. The Court applied binding Supreme Court dicta from Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which emphasised that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and must be sparingly invoked; the bench noted authorities which held that where ordinary criminal law remedies were available, including cancellation of bail, the State should not resort to preventive detention. The Court concluded that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority was not supported by adequate material and was therefore legally unsustainable.

The petition was allowed, the impugned detention order dated 13.01.2026 was quashed, and the detenue was directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1073 of 2026
Case Title: Firoz @ Salim Hasambhai Shaikh through Zebabanu Firozbhai Shaikh Versus State of Gujarat & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohsin Haider M. Bukhari (Advocate, 12017); O I Pathan (Advocate, 7684)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, APP