Ahmedabad, September 30 – In a significant order, the Gujarat High Court set aside the preventive detention of Mukeshbhai @ Agulbhai Shankarbhai Ravat, who had been branded a “bootlegger” by the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner earlier this month. The bench, comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval, observed that the State failed to show how Ravat’s alleged activities disrupted “public order” as defined under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
Background
Ravat was detained on 13 September under the 1985 Act after the police claimed his liquor-related offences were disturbing public life. The order cited two prohibition cases against him under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. His wife Jyotikaben filed the petition on his behalf, challenging the detention.
Read also: Punjab and Haryana High Court sternly warns lawyers against using mobile phones and AI
During arguments, Ravat’s lawyer Hemant Raval contended that the detention order was a misuse of preventive powers. “Registration of such offences may be a law-and-order problem, but it doesn’t automatically become a public-order issue,” he said in court.
On the other side, government pleader L.B. Dabhi argued that Ravat was a habitual offender whose activities had a larger social impact.
Court’s Observations
The bench carefully examined the material. It cited past Supreme Court rulings, including Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, to explain the fine line between law and order and public order.
Read also: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to 18-Year-Old Accused in POCSO Case, Citing Lack of Direct
Justice Vora, speaking for the bench, remarked, “Mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under preventive detention Act.” He added that offences affecting individuals or small groups cannot automatically be treated as threats to the wider public.
The court noted that although some witness statements accused Ravat of violent conduct, none of the allegations created “any feeling of insecurity or panic or terror among the members of the public.” The judges underscored that being labelled a bootlegger does not, by itself, justify preventive detention unless there is proof of broader social harm.
Read also: Calcutta High Court Corrects September 26 Order in Hatisala Developers vs The Statesman Limited
Decision
Concluding that the State had “wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction” required for such detention, the High Court quashed the Police Commissioner’s 13 September order. The bench directed that Ravat be “set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.”
Case: Mukeshbhai @ Agulbhai Shankarbhai Ravat v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Case No.: R/Special Criminal Application No. 12884 of 2025
Order Date: 30 September 2025