Gujarat High Court
Ravibhai Prakashbhai Dabhi Thro … vs Commissioner Of Police on 17 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1103/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1103 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
==========================================================
RAVIBHAI PRAKASHBHAI DABHI THRO INDRAJITSINH GHELUBHA
ZALA
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH H JOSHI(6495) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. YUVRAJ BHRAMBHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 17/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner namely Ravibhai
Prakashbhai Dabhi through his friend Indrajitsinh
Ghelubha Zala under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the detention order
detention order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the
Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City under Sub-
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 20:37:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1103/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
Section 2 of Section 3 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 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 execution upon the detenue
and presently he is detained in the Rajkot Jail.
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
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 20:37:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1103/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of
Ahmedabad and lastly prayed to dismiss the present
petition.
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 petitioner and presently
he is in Rajkot Jail. In the grounds of detention, reference
of one criminal case for the offences punishable under
Sections 66(1)(B), 65(A)(E), 116B, 98(2) and 81 of the
Prohibition Act as well as Sections 336(2) and 340(2) of
BNS registered with Madhavpura Police Station against
the petitioner on 25.12.2025 is made out.
7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities
of the detenue as a “bootlegger” affects adversely or are
likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as
explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985. Undisputedly,
in the aforesaid alleged offences, the petitioner was granted
regular bail by the concerned court.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 20:37:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1103/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
8. Considering the impugned order, it appears that the
provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985 is referred by
the concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to
be reproduced. The same reads as under:
“2(b) “bootlegger” means a person who distills,
manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or
distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in
contravention of any provision of the Bombay Prohibition
Act, 1949 and the rules and orders made thereunder, or of
any other law for the time being in force or who knowingly
expends or applies any money or supplies any animal,
vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any receptacle or any
other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the
doing of any of the things described above by or through any
other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of
any such thing;”
9. After consideration of the available material, we are of
the considered view that on the basis of one case, 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:
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 20:37:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1103/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
“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
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
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 20:37:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1103/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
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 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.
11. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned dated 09.01.2026 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.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Mehul DesaiPage 6 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 20:37:35 IST 2026
