Gujarat High Court
Hardikgiri Mahendragiri Goswami Thro. … vs State Of Gujarat on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/639/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 639 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HARDIKGIRI MAHENDRAGIRI GOSWAMI THRO. GOSWAMI AAKASH
MAHENDRAGIRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MITTAL N PATEL(7614) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI H BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 04/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)
1. The detenue herein namely Hardikgiri Mahendragiri
Goswami came to be preventively detained vide the detention
order dated 27.12.2025 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 detenue has challenged the
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Wed Feb 04 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 06 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/639/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
undefined
legality and validity of the aforesaid order through his
brother.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the respondent-State Authorities.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued
that there was no material available with the detention
authority to indicate as to how the public health or public
order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner.
Thus, in absence of any such material on record, the order of
detention ought not have been passed. It is further submitted
by learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned
order is passed without application of mind and prima facie
the order is passed mechanically.
4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted
that the impugned order was executed upon the detenue and
presently he is detained in the District Jail, Vadodara.
5. On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present
petition contended that the detenue is habitual offender and
his activities affected at the society at large. Hence, 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 and
lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Wed Feb 04 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 06 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/639/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
undefined
6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the core issue arises 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 or not?
7. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the
concerned authority. It appears that the order impugned was
executed upon the detenue and presently he is in District
Jail, Vadodara. In the grounds of detention, reference of Two
cases for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),
318(4), 112(2), 317(5) and 54 of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 registered with various police stations
against the detenue from 24.7.2025 to 12.12.2025 is
made out.
7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of
the detenue as a “Dangerous Peron” affects adversely or are
likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as
explained under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985. Undisputedly,
in the aforesaid alleged offences, the petitioner was granted
regular bail by the concerned court.
8. Considering the impugned order, it appears that the
provisions of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985 is referred by the
concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to be
reproduced. The same reads as under:
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Wed Feb 04 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 06 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/639/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
undefined
“2(c) “dangerous person” means a person who either by
himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually
commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission
of any other offences punishable under Chapter XVI or
Chapter VIII or Chapter XVI (except section 354, 354A,
354B, 354C, 354D, 376, 376A, 376B, 3376C, 376D, or
377) or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal
Code or any of the offences punishable under chapter V
of the Arms Act, 1959;”
9. After consideration of the available material, we are of
the considered view that on the basis of two 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 considered opinion, the said offences do not have any
bearing on the maintenance of public order. In this regard,
we would like to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and others reported
in AIR 2025 Sc 2868. In para-9 and para-21 of the said
decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“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 Nadu3 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.”
…..
“21. This Court in SK. Nazneen (supra), had observed that
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Wed Feb 04 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 06 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/639/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
undefined
the State should move for cancellation of bail of the detenu,
instead of placing him under the law of preventive detention,
which is not the appropriate remedy. Similarly, in Ameena
Begum v. State of Telengana9 , this Court observed :
“59. … It is pertinent to note that in the three criminal
proceedings where the detenu had been released on
bail, no applications for cancellation of bail had been
moved by the State. In the light of the same, the
provisions of the Act, which is an extraordinary statute,
should not have been resorted to when ordinary
criminal law provided sufficient means to address the
apprehensions leading to the impugned detention
order. There may have existed sufficient grounds to
appeal against the bail orders, but the circumstances
did not warrant the circumvention of ordinary criminal
procedure to resort to an extraordinary measure of the
law of preventive detention.”
60. In Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [Vijay Narain
Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14 : 1984 SCC
(Cri) 361] , Hon’ble E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as the Chief
Justice then was) observed : (SCC pp. 35-36, para 32)
32. … 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. When a person is
enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great
caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity
of an order of preventive detention which is based on
the very same charge which is to be tried by the
criminal court.” (Emphasis supplied)”
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered
opinion that, the material available on record are notPage 5 of 6
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Wed Feb 04 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 06 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/639/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
undefined
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.
11. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned dated 27.12.2025 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.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
OMKARPage 6 of 6
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Wed Feb 04 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 06 20:32:37 IST 2026
