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

A bench of Justices N.S. Sanjay Gowda and D. M. Vyas heard a challenge to a detention order dated 02.01.2026 issued by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, branding the petitioner as a “bootlegger” under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Ratanben @ Savitaben through her husband, Parmar Bhaveshbhai Mohanbhai, assailing the legality and validity of the preventive detention.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the detaining authority did not have sufficient material to form the requisite subjective satisfaction that the detenue’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Court observed that preventive detention was an “extraordinary power” and could not be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal remedies available to the State. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled that the law of preventive detention is a hard law and therefore it should be strictly construed. Care should be taken that the liberty of a person is not jeopardised unless his case falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant law. The law of preventive detention should not be used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution. It is not intended for the purpose of keeping a man under detention when under ordinary criminal law it may not be possible to resist the issue of orders of bail, unless the material available is such as would satisfy the requirements of the legal provisions authorising such detention." The Court further held that “the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid or in accordance with law,” and ordered the detenue’s release forthwith if she was not required in any other case.

Background The detention order of 02.01.2026 classified the petitioner as a “bootlegger” under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985 and relied on a criminal case registered on 29.12.2025 at Puna Police Station, Surat, for offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 81 and 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The petitioner was in custody at Vadodara Central Jail and had been granted bail in the cited criminal proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no material to show disturbance of public health, public order or public tranquility and that the order appeared to be passed mechanically without application of mind. The State opposed the petition, stating that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities affected society and that preventive detention was warranted to maintain public order in Surat.

The Court examined the detaining order and the material placed before the authority and reproduced Section 2(b) defining “bootlegger.” Relying on precedent from the Apex Court — including Dhaya M. v. State of Kerala and authorities such as SK. Nazneen and Ameena Begum — the Court noted that preventive detention was an exceptional power which should be exercised sparingly, and that where ordinary criminal law remedies (for example, cancellation of bail) were available, those should be pursued instead of circumventing regular criminal procedure. The Court found that reliance on a single case did not justify the conclusion that the petitioner’s activities were likely to affect the maintenance of public order. For these reasons the petition succeeded, the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 was quashed and the detenue was directed to be set at liberty forthwith, subject to any other legal requirement.

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 473 of 2026 Case Title: RATANBEN @ SAVITABEN D/O RAMESHBHAI VAGHELA THROUGH PARMAR BHAVESHBHAI MOHANBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearances: (List advocates if available, for both sides using the format) For the Petitioner(s): MR JANAK H PARMAR(12638) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 For the Respondent(s): MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1