Gujarat High Court
Chetan @ Chirag Khengarbhai Parmar Thro … vs State Of Gujarat on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3096/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3096 of 2026
=========================================
CHETAN @ CHIRAG KHENGARBHAI PARMAR THRO PARMAR
LILABEN KHENGARBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance:
JIGNESHKUMAR M NAYAK(8558) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MRS MEGHABEN CHITALIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 23/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. The petitioner came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 13/02/2026 passed by the respondent
authority, 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 learned counsel and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the grounds of
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
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 21:16:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3096/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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 Gandhinagar.
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 petitioner and
presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference
of three criminal cases i.e. (i) for the offence under Sections
307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 333, 323, 326, 504, 506(2) and 294(B)
of the IPC and section 135 of the GP Act with Sabarmati
Railway Police Station, (ii) for the offence under Sections
115(2), 324(2), 125(a), 352, 351(3) and 54 of the BNS and
Section 135 of the GP Act with Kalol Police Station, (iii) for the
offence under Sections 118(1) and 352 of the BNS and Section
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 21:16:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3096/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
135 of the GP Act with Kalol Police Station 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
petitioner was granted bail.
8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of aforesaid 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 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 toPage 3 of 5
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 21:16:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/3096/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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 injure 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 or terror among the members of the
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 21:16:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3096/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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 13/02/2026 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)
Kaushal Rathod
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 23 21:16:56 IST 2026
