IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6432 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- OMPRAKASH RAMPRASAD JAISWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 6432 of 2001 MS BANNA S DUTTA for Petitioner No. 1 MR SS Patel, AGP, for Respondents No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 08/01/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad, passed an order on the 13th July, 2001, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA Act" for short), detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act. 2. The detaining authority took into consideration two registered offences against the petitioner, one on two registered offences against the petitioner, one on the 14th March, 2000 and the other on the 8th July, 2001 and branded him as a bootlegger. The detaining authority observed that the petitioner is required to be immediately prevented from pursuing his activities, which are detrimental to public order. The authority also considered the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedies and came to a conclusion that detention under PASA Act is the only remedy that can be resorted to. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Banna Dutta, assails this order on the ground that the first offence is an old one and there is no livelink. So far as the second offence is concerned, the petitioner was in judicial custody when the order was passed and served on him. The detaining authority has anticipated an application for bail that may be moved by the petitioner and then bail may be granted to the petitioner, which is not permissible and, therefore, the petition may be allowed. 4. Mr. S.S. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has opposed this petition. 5. There is no dispute about the factual aspects. The first offence which is relied upon as a ground for detention is of 14.3.2000 and, therefore, is a stale incident which cannot form a valid ground for detention as there is no livelink between the activities of the detenu and the order of detention. So far as the second offence is concerned, the grounds of detention itself indicate that the detenu was in custody and anticipating an application for bail and grant of bail, the detaining authority deemed it necessary to detain the petition. In this regard, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amritlal v. Union Government, AIR 2000 SC 3675 may be profitably referred to. It was observed that the satisfaction of the authority based on likelihood of detenu moving an application for bail is not sufficient. That likelihood of detenu moving an application for bail is different from likelihood to be released on bail and, therefore, the order of detention was quashed. This judgment would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated the 13th July, 2001, passed against the detenu is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu-Omprakash Ramprasad Jaiswal is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute with no orders as to costs. [ A.L. DAVE, J. ] gt