AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.L. Dave, J.—The Petitioner came to be detained by order dated 9.8.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Police Commissioner, Surat city.
The detaining authority in the reasons recorded that the Petitioner-detenu is involved in offence punishable under Sections 5, 8 and 10 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, so also u/s 11LH of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and Sections 429, 120B and 295A of IPC. He is, therefore, a cruel person as defined u/s 2(bbb) of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985. The detaining authority also recorded that it is not possible to take action against the Petitioner under the Bombay Police Act by externing him. His activities are antisocial and, therefore, he is required to be detained to deter him from engaging in such activities.
Learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the order is vitiated because only on the basis of one offence registered against the Petitioner and in absence of any other material to show involvement of the Petitioner in similar activities, the detaining authority has recorded a subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner is a cruel person. The definition of cruel person requires habitual involvement and, therefore, the subjective satisfaction and the consequential order are vitiated.
Learned AGP has opposed this petition.
Having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be necessary to refer to the definition of ''cruel person'' as given in Section 2(bbb) of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985, which runs as under:
2(bbb) ''cruel person'' means a person who either by himself or as member or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit abets the commission of an offence punishable u/s 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (Bom. LXXII of 1954).
It is clear from reading of the definition that the person to be branded as a cruel person has to be either a member or leader of a gang habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offence punishable u/s 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954. The term ''habitually'' examined from any angle, literal or legal, would require presence of an element of repetitiveness. In the instant case, barring one offence registered against the Petitioner there was no material before the detaining authority to record a satisfaction that the Petitioner is habitual or repetitively involved in the offences.
Under the circumstances, the subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner is a cruel person on the basis of which he has been detained is vitiated.
The petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The impugned order of detention passed by Respondent No. 2 Police Commissioner, Surat city dated 9.8.2010 detaining detenu - Mohammed Riyaz Mohammed Idrish khan Pathan is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. Direct service is permitted.