Home

High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Lack of Material Showing Threat to Public Order

Copy LinkShareSave

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani heard a challenge to a preventive detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara dated 04.01.2026 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985, whereby the detenue was declared a “dangerous person” under Section 2(c) of the Act. The petition contested the legality and validity of the detention order and sought immediate release.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the detaining authority had not recorded sufficient material to justify satisfaction that the detenue’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Court found that the subjective satisfaction was based solely on three recent criminal entries and that those offences did not, on the available material, have a bearing on public order in the statutory sense. The Court relied on Supreme Court authorities underscoring that preventive detention was “an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly” and that where ordinary criminal remedies were available the State should not “circumvent… the law of preventive detention.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered opinion that, the material 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 directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Background The detenue, Nikung Maheshbhai Sharma, was detained by an order of the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara dated 04.01.2026 as a “dangerous person” under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985. The grounds referred to three criminal cases registered under Section 303(2) of the BNS between 21.12.2025 and 29.12.2025. The detenue, through his father Maheshbhai Babubhai Parekh (Sharma), filed the Special Criminal Application before the High Court challenging the order as bereft of material showing disturbance to public health, public order or public tranquility and as passed without application of mind.

Counsel for the detenue argued that the offences relied upon did not demonstrate a threat to public order and that the order was prima facie mechanical. The State contended that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities adversely affected society and justified preventive detention. The record also showed that the detenue had been granted bail in the criminal proceedings relied upon by the detaining authority.

The High Court examined the definition of “dangerous person” in Section 2(c) and considered relevant Supreme Court authorities, including the decision in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala, which the bench quoted to reiterate that preventive detention was an extraordinary measure and should not be used where ordinary criminal law provided adequate remedies. The Court noted authorities which advised that the State ought to move for cancellation of bail rather than resorting to preventive detention where the same allegations formed the basis of ongoing criminal trials. Finding the material inadequate to sustain the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 04.01.2026 and directed release subject to any other legal requirement. Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1751 of 2026 Case Title: NIKUNG MAHESHBHAI SHARMA THROUGH MAHESHBHAI BABUBHAI PAREKH (SHARMA) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): VASIMRAJA A KURESHI (Advocate for Applicant No.1) For the Respondent(s): MR. RONAK RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (for Respondent No.1)