In a significant ruling on preventive detention, the Gujarat High Court has set aside the detention order issued against Zahir Ismail Sandhi, a resident of Devbhumi Dwarka, who was labeled a “bootlegger” under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The court held that the cases cited against him were insufficient to justify his detention, as they did not impact public order.
Background
Sandhi had been detained by the District Magistrate on September 29, 2025, under the preventive detention law meant to curb anti-social elements. The order referred to three prohibition-related offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. However, his counsel, advocate Dharmendra Chavda, argued that these offences-though criminal-were isolated incidents and did not threaten public peace or create fear among citizens.
Chavda told the bench that “registration of such offences may disturb law and order at best, but cannot be equated with a disturbance to public order.” He emphasized that preventive detention is an extreme measure and must be used only when the community’s sense of security is shaken.
On the other side, Additional Public Prosecutor Maithili Mehta defended the Magistrate’s decision, contending that Sandhi’s repeated involvement in bootlegging posed a social threat. According to the State, his “habitual activities” had affected the larger society, warranting preventive action.
Court’s Observations
The division bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval examined the legality of the detention and the nature of the offences cited. The judges noted that the three prohibition cases, while criminal in nature, did not demonstrate any link to disruption of public order.
“The authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue’s acts were prejudicial to public order,” the bench observed. It clarified that merely committing offences under the Prohibition Act cannot automatically justify preventive detention.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Refuses to Condon Delay of 11-Year in Deepa Rani M's Appeal, Says Litigants Must
The judges relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1989) and Pushkar Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal (1969), both of which clearly distinguish between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’.
Justice Vora remarked, “Every breach of law affects order, but to affect public order, the act must disturb the community’s even tempo of life. The offences here do not cross that threshold.”
The court added that though Sandhi might technically fall within the definition of a “bootlegger,” the prosecution failed to prove that his actions created any panic or insecurity among the public in his area.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Upholds Tribunal Order: Navy Foreman Entitled to Pay Parity After Junior Earned
Decision
Concluding that the District Magistrate’s “subjective satisfaction” was unsustainable, the bench quashed the detention order dated September 29, 2025. It directed that Zahir Ismail Sandhi be released immediately unless required in any other case.
“The material on record is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner’s activities have affected public order. The detention order, therefore, cannot stand,” the bench ruled.
With this, the High Court reaffirmed that preventive detention cannot be invoked lightly and that ordinary criminal law is adequate to deal with individual offences unless a broader public threat is established.
Case: Zahir Ismail Sandhi (Thro. Sandhi Salmabanu Zahirbhai) vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: R/Special Criminal Application No. 14139 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 16 October 2025
