The Gujarat High Court has held that mere registration of FIR against a person does not mean that he is a threat to the maintenance of public order.
"Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the [Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities] Act," Justice SH Vora held.
Section 3(2) of the said Act confers powers on the state authorities to detain a person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
In the instant case, the Petitioner-detenu had been detained under the Act in connection to his activities with respect to the criminal cases filed against him under Section Sections 379(a)(3), 114, etc of IPC.
The Petitioner had argued that any illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of "public order" and at the most, it can be said to be breach of "law and order". He further submitted that there was no cogent material on record connecting the alleged anti-social activities committed by him with breach of public order.
Concurring with these submissions, the court said that unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.
"The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation"
…Simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have recourse under the Act and no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act."
Accordingly, the state was directed to release the Petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case Title: Md. Umar Abdul Jabbar Abdul v. State Of Gujarat
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 19566/2019
Quorum: Justice SH Vora
Appearance: Advocate Krishna U Mishra (for Petitioner); AGP Divyangna Jhala (for Respondent)
Click Here To Download Judgment