ABDUL RASHID ABDUL GANI BUKHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Abdul Rashid Abdul Gani Bukhari
State of Gujarat Q And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
S.H. Vora, J. -
(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 8.11.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of powers under Sub -Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, the Act') at pre -detention stage. Vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 passed in LPA No. 1241 of 2013, the Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter to decide afresh after calling upon the detention order and grounds for detention. Accordingly, after calling upon the detention order for Court's perusal, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.
(2.) BRIEF facts as arising from the petition are that an F.I.R. being C.R. No. II -3150 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 6, 6(C)(B)(1)(2)(3) and 8 of the Mumbai Animal Preservation Act, 1954, Section 11(L) of the Animal Cruelty Act, sections 335 and 336 of the BPMC Act and Section 119 of the G.P. Act on 2.11.2012 before Vatva GIDC police station. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a married person. The petitioner has accompanied one Ismail Dilavarbhai Shaikh resident of House No. 103, Muslim Society, Nr. Golden Cinema, Vatva and Latifbhai Abbasbhai Shaikh, resident of Vaghsibhai's Chapra, Near Qureshi Jamat Medan, Ahmedabad for the purpose of buying small buffaloes for the purpose of slaughter in Icher Truck No. GJ -6 -Z -7892 of the ownership of Saeedbhai Gulamnabhi Shaikh. The said truck was intercepted by the GIDC Vatva Police near Vinzol Circle and the petitioner and his two friends were arrested. Thereafter, the petitioner and two other accused persons were enlarged on bail on 3.11.2012. Upon serious apprehension that the order of detention has already been passed against the petitioner, the present petition is preferred.
(3.) AN affidavit -in -reply is filed by the respondent No. 2 contending that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under the law. In the said reply, it is stated by the respondent No. 2 that an order of detention is passed by the authority under the said Act against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has preferred this petition at a pre -mature stage apprehending that the respondent authorities would invoke the provisions of the said Act against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the present petition has been filed with misconception of facts and law at the stage of pre -execution of detention order. It was contended that the petitioner was required to surrender before challenging the order of detention which is not yet served to him. It was further contended that since the detaining authority on a subjective satisfaction, after perusal of relevant materials placed before it including the documents relating to one offence registered against the petitioner that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention was passed against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the detaining authority, after carefully considering, pursuing, examining and applying its mind to all the relevant materials placed before it as well as legal provisions applicable to the same, was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is a 'cruel person' as defined under Section 2(bbb) of the Act and hence, passed the order of detention against the petitioner to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Along with the affidavit -in -reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the State has placed on record detention order No. PCB/DTN/PASA/726/2012 dated 8.11.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 for Court's perusal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.