CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1989) 01 GUJ CK 0006

Kalubhai vs Commissioner of Police and Others

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 31 January 1989 · Citation: (1990) CriLJ 496 : (1989) 2 GLR 765

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.B. Patel, J · G.T. Nanavati, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Spl. Criminal Application No. 897 of 1988

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 357 words

G.T. Nanavati, J.—This petition, challenging the order of detention dated 18-7-88 passed against the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police. Ahmedabad City on the ground that the petitioner is a bootlegger and a dangerous person and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, deserves to be allowed on the ground that the same was passed without proper application of mind,

2.

In the grounds, it is stated that the petitioner is a bootlegger and is carrying on the said activity either himself or through his associates. It is thereafter stated that in connection with the said activity four cases have been registered against him, and that he was arrested in those four cases. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except in one case viz. an offence registered as C.R. No. 163 87 the petitioner was not involved in any of the criminal cases mentioned in the grounds. Having seen the material, we find that the petitioner was not an accused either in C.R. No. 266/87 or 106/88 or 107/88. In C.R. No. 163/87 where he was the accused he was wanted, and there is no material to show that he was arrested in that case. In the other three cases his name does not appear as an accused nor was he arrested in any of those cases. It. therefore, becomes clear that the statement in the grounds that the said four cases were registered against the petitioner and that he was arrested in those cases is factually not correct. This clearly shows non-application of mind. As the satisfaction was arrived at without proper application of mind, it will have to be held that the said satisfaction stands vitiated and the order of detention having been passed without proper application of mind deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3.

In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in Jail in connection with some other offence. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.