Gujarat High Court
Sahil Shashikant Bhil Thro Jayshree … vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3916/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3916 of 2026
==========================================================
SAHIL SHASHIKANT BHIL THRO JAYSHREE W/O. SHASHIKANT BHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DINESHKUMAR D GAUTAM(9549) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 01/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The petitioner herein namely Sahil Shashikant Bhil came to be
preventively detained vide the detention order dated 10.03.2026 passed
by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, as a “dangerous
person” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of
Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred as ‘the Act of
1985).
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality
and validity of the aforesaid order.
3. This Court has heard Mr.Dineshkumar Gautam learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr.L.B. Dabhi learned APP for the respondent
State.
4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the grounds of
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 02 00:26:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3916/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
detention has no nexus to the “public order”, but is a purely a matter of
law and order, as registration of the offence cannot be said to have
either affected adversely or likely to affect adverse the maintenance of
public order as contemplated under the explanation sub-section (4) of
Section 3 of the Act, 1985 and therefore, where the offences alleged to
have been committed by the detunue have no bearing on the question
of maintenance of public order and his activities could be said to be a
prejudicial only to the maintenance of law and order and not
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the
application contended that, the detenue is habitual offender and his
activities affected at the society at large. In such set of circumstances,
the Detaining Authority, considering the antecedents and past activities
of the detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City.
6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by
the respective parties, the issue arise as to whether the order of
detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of his powers
under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?
7. The order impugned was executed upon the applicant and
presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of four
criminal cases i.e. (I) for the offences punishable under Sections 427,
294B, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act, (II) 427,
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 02 00:26:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3916/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
294(B), 506(2) of the IPC and Sections 135(1) of the G.P. Act, (II) for
the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 294B, 114 of the IPC
and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act, (III) for the offences punishable
under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 296B, 324(4), 351(2), 54 of the BNS
and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act and (IV) for the offences
punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 351(3), 296B, 54 of the
BNS and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act, registered against the
applicant under the Indian Penal Code was made and further it is
alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “dangerous person”
affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of
public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.
Admittedly, in all the said offences, the applicant was granted bail.
8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of four criminal cases, the authority
has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of
the detenue could be termed to be acting in a manner ‘prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order’. In our opinion, the said offences do not
have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. In this
connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad,
1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, wherein, the detention order was made on the
basis of the registration of the two prohibition offences. The Apex
Court after referring the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of
Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 10 held and observed that mere disturbance of
law and order leading to detention order is thus not necessarily
sufficient for action under preventive detention Act. Paras-17 & 18 are
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 02 00:26:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3916/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
relevant to refer, which read thus:
“17. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court
in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, where the
distinction between `law and order’ and `public order’ has been
clearly laid down. Ramaswami, J. speaking for the Court
observed as follows:
10. “Does the expression `public order’ take in
every kind of infraction of order or only some
categories thereof? It is manifest that every act of
assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to
public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight
and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it
may be said that there is disorder but not public
disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers
vested in the executive authorities under the provisions
of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be
detained on the ground that they were disturbing public
order. The contravention of any law always affects
order but before it can be said to affect public order, it
must affect the community or the public at large. In this
connection we must draw a line of demarcation
between serious and aggravated forms of disorder
which directly affect the community or injure the public
interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a
purely local significance which primarily injurePage 4 of 6
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 02 00:26:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/3916/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
specific individuals and only in a secondary sense
public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order
leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for
action under the Preventive Detention Act but a
disturbance which will affect public order comes within
the scope of the Act.”
18. In the instant case, the detaining authority, in our opinion,
has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti- social activities
of the petitioner adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely
the maintenance of public order. It is true some incidents of
beating by the petitioner had taken place, as alleged by the
witnesses. But, such incidents, in our view, do not have any
bearing on the maintenance of public order. The petitioner may
be punished for the alleged offences committed by him but,
surely, the acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have
affected the even tempo of the life of the community. It may be
that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of section
2(b) of the Act, but merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot
be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless,
as laid down in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act, his
activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect
adversely the maintenance of public order We have carefully
considered the offences alleged against the petitioner in the
order of detention and also the allegations made by the
witnesses and, in our opinion, these offences or the allegations
cannot be said to have created any feeling of insecurity or panic
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 02 00:26:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3916/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
or terror among the members of the public of the area in
question giving rise to the question of maintenance of public
order. The order of detention cannot, therefore, be upheld.”
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order impugned
dated 10.03.2026 passed by the respondent authority is hereby
quashed. We direct the detenue to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is
not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct service permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Rakesh
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 02 00:26:44 IST 2026
