Gujarat High Court
Sanjay @ Sanju Gotubhai Kahar vs Commissioner Of Police Of The City Of … on 27 April, 2026
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5266/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5266 of 2026
==========================================================
SANJAY @ SANJU GOTUBHAI KAHAR
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF VADODARA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. L.B. DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 27/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)
1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 11.04.2026 passed by the Police Commissioner,
Vadodara City, as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) 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 Mr. Mohddanish M Barejia
and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
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
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:10:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5266/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
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 of 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 Vadodara.
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 one
criminal cases registered against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 116-B, 81, 83 and 98(2) of the
Prohibition Act and Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3) and 111(4) of the B.N.S.,
2023 dated 02.02.2026 registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station
was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue
as a “bootlegger” affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:10:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5266/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of
1985. Admittedly, in 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 one prohibition 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 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 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 werePage 3 of 5
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:10:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/SCR.A/5266/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
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 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
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:10:22 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5266/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
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 11.04.2026 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)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:10:22 IST 2026
