Gujarat HC: Not Wearing a Mask and Getting Into an Altercation With Police Doesn’t Constitute an Act Against Public Order

Must Read

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment which said Groping without Skin Contact Not Sexual Assault under POCSO

The National Commission for Women (NCW) has challenged the Bombay High Court judgment where it stated that groping a child’s breasts without any ‘skin-to-skin’ contact will not be considered as sexual assault as defined under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Supreme Court Classifying Employees Based on Educational Qualifications for Promotion or Appointment Is Neither Violative of Article 14 nor of Article 16

This case concerns the dispute relating to the classification of employees belonging to the homogenous group based on educational...

Supreme Court Refuses To Transfer Petitions To Itself Related To ‘Love Jihad’ Filed in Allahabad High Court

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea which was filed by the UP Government regarding the transfer of all the pleas challenging the ordinance the court passed, from Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench Holds That Groping a Girl Without ‘Skin To Skin’ Contact Is Not Sexual Assault

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court acquitted a man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and convicted him of a minor offence under IPC stating that there was no direct physical contact.

Delhi High Court Restrains Publication of Book on “the Ryan School Murder”

The Order had come in an injunction application filed by the St. Xavier's Education Trust in Delhi. The Plaintiff...

Supreme Court Closed Proceeding in Case of “in Re: Advocate on Record Includes a Proprietary Firm Etc.”

Brief facts of the case Emails from the Petitioner resulted in an administrative decision. An Order of the Supreme Court...

Follow us

A petition was filed by a man detained (detenue) as a “dangerous person” under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA) against the order of the District Magistrate. Gujarat High Court allowed the petition and demanded the release of the detained person.

Facts of the Case

A petition was filed against the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate under Section 2(c) PASA against a man. As per the FIR report, the petitioner/detenue was not wearing a mask and upon confrontation entered into an altercation with the police personnel. Subsequently, an order of detention was passed, and the man was detained. The present petition has been filed against this aforesaid order of detention.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner submitted that the registration of the solitary offences in the FIR under Sections 332, 353, 186, 188, 504, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by itself could not bring a case against the detenue under Section 2(c) PASA. Moreover, the alleged illegal activity said to be carried out by the detenue cannot be said to be a breach of law or disruption of public order. Besides, the witness statements, there exists no other material on record which connects the alleged anti-social activity with a breach of public order. Based on the present matter at hand, it cannot be concluded that the alleged illegal activity of the detenue caused a disorder in society. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that the order of detention passed in the present petition must be quashed and set aside.

Respondent’s Submissions

The respondent rejected the contentions put forth by the petitioner and supported the detention order passed by the authority. The respondent submitted that during the investigation, sufficient material and evidence had been obtained. Such evidence was also given to the detenue to indicate that he is indulging in activities defined under Section 2(c) PASA. Therefore, the detention order was rightly passed and deserved to be upheld by the Court.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that the conclusion arrived at by the legal authority is not legal and in accordance with the law. The offences alleged in the FIR have no nexus to disruption of public order. Further, there are other relevant penal laws better suited to handle the present situation. Unless there is enough material to prove that the actions of a person caused threat and menace to the society and disrupted public order, no action can be brought under Section 2(c) PASA. The Court observed that other than general witness statements, there was no material on record to prove that the detenue had disrupted public order. The Court also referred to a decision passed by the Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal where the distinction between disruption of law and order, public order, and general order had been clarified.

The Court noted that the word “dangerous person” under Section 2(c) PASA, refers to a person who habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commissions of any offence under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959. As per the Court, what stands out here is that the offence must be repeatedly or continuously committed. In the present case, however, the offence is solitary, and the detaining authority has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect.

Court’s Decision

After taking into consideration the submissions by both parties in light of the facts and contentions made, the Court allowed the present petition. The Court said that registration of FIR in the absence of relevant material is not enough to conclude that there has been a disruption of public order. The Court thus quashed the order of detainment passed by the respondent and directed that the detenue be set free.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment which said Groping without Skin Contact Not Sexual Assault under POCSO

The National Commission for Women (NCW) has challenged the Bombay High Court judgment where it stated that groping a child’s breasts without any ‘skin-to-skin’ contact will not be considered as sexual assault as defined under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Supreme Court Classifying Employees Based on Educational Qualifications for Promotion or Appointment Is Neither Violative of Article 14 nor of Article 16

This case concerns the dispute relating to the classification of employees belonging to the homogenous group based on educational qualifications. Brief facts of the case The...

Supreme Court Refuses To Transfer Petitions To Itself Related To ‘Love Jihad’ Filed in Allahabad High Court

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea which was filed by the UP Government regarding the transfer of all the pleas challenging the ordinance the court passed, from Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench Holds That Groping a Girl Without ‘Skin To Skin’ Contact Is Not Sexual Assault

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court acquitted a man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and convicted him of a minor offence under IPC stating that there was no direct physical contact.

Delhi High Court Restrains Publication of Book on “the Ryan School Murder”

The Order had come in an injunction application filed by the St. Xavier's Education Trust in Delhi. The Plaintiff sought ad-interim restraining order on...

Supreme Court Closed Proceeding in Case of “in Re: Advocate on Record Includes a Proprietary Firm Etc.”

Brief facts of the case Emails from the Petitioner resulted in an administrative decision. An Order of the Supreme Court has drawn up the issue...

Supreme Court To Hear Female Army Officers Plea on Non-Implementation of the Permanent Commission

Claiming that its order granting Permanent Commission to women in the army’s non-combat support units on par with the male counterparts was not implemented well, many Women Army officers have approached the Supreme Court.

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -