{"id":189796,"date":"2011-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-06-16T06:48:24","modified_gmt":"2017-06-16T01:18:24","slug":"lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Harsha Devani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2504\/2009\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2504 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nLALABHAI\nMAFABHAI RABARI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMS KRISHNA U MISHRA for the\nPetitioner. \nMr. K.L.Pandya, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the\nRespondents. \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/08\/2009 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.<br \/>\nThis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is<br \/>\ndirected against the order of preventive detention dated 5th March,<br \/>\n2009 made by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City in exercise of<br \/>\npowers under sub- section (2) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention<br \/>\nof Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, whereby the petitioner has been<br \/>\ndetained as a bootlegger.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.<br \/>\nMs. K.U.Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted<br \/>\nthat the activities of the petitioner, can, at the most, become to be<br \/>\nactivities falling within the ambit of public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.<br \/>\nThe learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the<br \/>\nimpugned order of detention is based solely upon three cases<br \/>\nregistered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay<br \/>\nProhibition Act registered on 5th August, 2007, 12th July, 2007 and<br \/>\n12th February, 2009. It is submitted that the mere registration of<br \/>\noffences under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act would not<br \/>\nbring the petitioner within the purview of the definition of section<br \/>\n2(b) of the PASA Act. It is further submitted that illegal activities<br \/>\nalleged to have been carried out by the petitioner cannot be said to<br \/>\nhave any nexus or bearing with maintenance of the public health and<br \/>\norder and at the most, can be said to be a breach of law and order.<br \/>\nIt is also pointed out that except for the statements of witnesses,<br \/>\nregistration of FIR and panchnama, no other relevant or cogent<br \/>\nmaterial is available on record connecting the alleged anti-social<br \/>\nactivities of the petitioner with breach of public order. Reliance is<br \/>\nplaced upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/74588\/\">K.K.Saravana<br \/>\nBabu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and<\/a> another, reported in (2008) 9<br \/>\nSupreme Court Cases 89. Reliance is also placed on the decision of<br \/>\nthis Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/646212\/\">Premnath Mohanlal Rajput (Advocate) vs. State<br \/>\nof Gujarat,<\/a> reported in 2006 Criminal Law Journal,1183 as well as an<br \/>\nunreported decision of this Court in Jigar @ <a href=\"\/doc\/1922873\/\">Lalo Pravinbhai Purani<br \/>\nvs. State of Gujarat<\/a> through Deputy Secretary rendered in Special<br \/>\nCivil Application No. 411 of 2009 on 12.2.2009. It is submitted that<br \/>\nthe present case is squarely covered by the law lid down in the<br \/>\naforesaid decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.<br \/>\nMr. K.L.Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for<br \/>\nthe respondent State authorities has supported the impugned order of<br \/>\ndetention. It is submitted that the detaining authority has<br \/>\nconsidered the material on record and has arrived at a subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning<br \/>\nof section 2(b) of the PASA Act. Reliance is placed on the decision<br \/>\nof this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/213142\/\">Keshubhai Madiyabhai Katara vs. Commissioner of<br \/>\nPolice of the City of Ahmedabad,<\/a> reported in 2007(3) GLH 233 and more<br \/>\nparticularly the contents of paragraph 7 thereof to contend that it<br \/>\nis to be necessarily deemed that public order was likely to be<br \/>\nadversely affected due to alleged activities of the petitioner. It is<br \/>\nmainly submitted that no case is made out so as to warrant any<br \/>\nintervention by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.<br \/>\nA perusal of the impugned order of detention indicates that except<br \/>\nfor general statements to the effect that the activities of the<br \/>\npetitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and<br \/>\nthat the activities of the petitioner have created fear amongst<br \/>\npublic at large, there is no material on record to show that the<br \/>\nactivities of the petitioner are, in any manner, prejudicial to the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order. The activities of the petitioner cannot<br \/>\nbe said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and at<br \/>\nthe most, would fall within the ambit of maintenance of public order.<br \/>\nIn the circumstances, subjective satisfaction of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority being based on no material stands vitiated, hence, the<br \/>\nimpugned order of detention cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.<br \/>\nIt is settled legal position as held by the Supreme Court in the case<br \/>\nof <a href=\"\/doc\/73077943\/\">Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad<br \/>\nCity and<\/a> another, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322 that in order that an<br \/>\nactivity may be said to affect adversely the maintenance of public<br \/>\norder, there must be material to show that there has been a feeling<br \/>\nof insecurity among the general public. If an act of a person creates<br \/>\npanic or fear in the minds of the members of the public upsetting the<br \/>\neven tempo of life of the community, such act must be said to have a<br \/>\ndirect bearing on the question of maintenance of public order. The<br \/>\ncommission of an offence will not necessarily come within the purview<br \/>\nof  public order . On the facts of the said case the petitioner<br \/>\ntherein was detained on the ground that he was a bootlegger and that<br \/>\nsome incidents of beating by the petitioner had taken place, as<br \/>\nalleged by witnesses. According to the Supreme Court the said<br \/>\nincidents did not have any bearing on the maintenance of public<br \/>\norder. It was further held that:\n<\/p>\n<p> The petitioner<br \/>\nmay be punished for the alleged offences committed by him but,<br \/>\nsurely, such acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have<br \/>\naffected the even tempo of life of the community. It may be that the<br \/>\npetitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the<br \/>\nAct, but merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively<br \/>\ndetained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid down in<br \/>\nsub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act, his activities as bootlegger<br \/>\naffect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public<br \/>\norder. We have carefully considered the offences alleged against the<br \/>\npetitioner in the order of detention and also the allegations made by<br \/>\nthe witnesses and, in our opinion,<br \/>\nthese offences or the allegations cannot be said to have created any<br \/>\nfeeling of insecurity or panic or terror among the members of the<br \/>\npublic of the area in question giving rise to the question of<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order. The order of detention cannot,<br \/>\ntherefore, be upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.<br \/>\nA Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22nd<br \/>\nAugust, 2000 rendered in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1069201\/\">Ashokbhai Balabhai Makwana<br \/>\nv. State of Gujarat, Letters Patent Appeal No.223 of<\/a> 2000,<br \/>\nafter considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/521149\/\">Kanuji S. Zala v. State of Gujarat,<\/a> 1999 (2) GLH 415<br \/>\nheld that a bald observation that the activities of the petitioner<br \/>\nwere an obstacle to public health and public order cannot be taken to<br \/>\nbe decisive so as to arrive at the satisfaction that the activities<br \/>\nof the petitioner were prejudicial to the public order or public<br \/>\nhealth and that tempo of public life was disturbed. The Court further<br \/>\nheld that the litmus test to find out whether it is a case of breach<br \/>\nof public order or breach of public health is that credible material<br \/>\nhas to be there. In the facts of the said case, apart from the<br \/>\nallegation that the petitioner was a bootlegger based on some<br \/>\nregistered cases, there were some unregistered cases and statements<br \/>\nof anonymous witnesses against the petitioner therein. The Court held<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p> Thus, the only<br \/>\nmaterial which remains is the registered criminal cases and that by<br \/>\nitself cannot be said to be a material for the purpose of holding<br \/>\nthat the appellant&#8217;s activities had become a threat to the public<br \/>\norder and public health. Necessary material in this regard is totally<br \/>\nwanting in the body of the detention order itself. In large number of<br \/>\ncases, the Supreme Court has considered that involvement in<br \/>\nbootlegging activities even if coupled<br \/>\nwith violence does not amount to threat to public order or public<br \/>\nhealth. The mere mention of allegations unless they are supported by<br \/>\nany material cannot be said to be material germane for the purpose of<br \/>\narriving at the satisfaction with regard to breach of public order or<br \/>\npublic health.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.<br \/>\nOn the facts of the present case a perusal of the detention order<br \/>\nshows that after giving the particulars of the criminal cases, the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has simply observed that the petitioner s<br \/>\nactivities were an obstacle to the public health and public order<br \/>\nwithout there being any credible material in support thereof. Thus,<br \/>\nthere is no material on record except the four cases registered<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition<br \/>\nAct. As held by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in the<br \/>\ndecisions cited hereinabove, mere registration of criminal cases<br \/>\ncannot by itself be said to be a material for holding that the<br \/>\npetitioner s activities have become a threat to public order or<br \/>\npublic health.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.<br \/>\nThe decision of this court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1446774\/\">Salam Abdul Hanifshaibhai<br \/>\nThrough Wife Hajirabibi Salam vs. (The) District Magistrate and Ors.<\/a><br \/>\n[2007 (3) G.L.H. Page 131] on which reliance has been placed<br \/>\nby the learned Assistant Government Pleader will not be of any<br \/>\nassistance to him as in the facts of the said case, it was found that<br \/>\nthe detaining authority had arrived at the satisfaction that the<br \/>\npetitioner therein was a bootlegger and his activities were<br \/>\nprejudicial to the maintenance of public order as well as about the<br \/>\nlikelihood of his activities causing widespread danger to the public<br \/>\nhealth by the scale of his operations which were all substantiated by<br \/>\ncredible and cogent material. In the present case, there is nothing<br \/>\nto show that the activities of the petitioner were carried out on a<br \/>\nlarge scale nor is there any credible or cogent material to<br \/>\nsubstantiate the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority<br \/>\nthat the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order or public health. In the circumstances,<br \/>\nthe subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority being<br \/>\nbased on no evidence, stands vitiated and as such the order of<br \/>\ndetention cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.<br \/>\nFor the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly<br \/>\nallowed. The impugned order of detention dated 5th March, 2009 passed<br \/>\nby the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City is hereby quashed and set<br \/>\naside and the detenu Lalabhai Mafabhai Rabari is hereby ordered to be<br \/>\nset at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other<br \/>\ncase. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>(HARSHA<br \/>\nDEVANI, J.) <\/p>\n<p>***darji<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 Author: Harsha Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2504\/2009 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2504 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-16T01:18:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-16T01:18:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1684,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-16T01:18:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-16T01:18:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-16T01:18:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011"},"wordCount":1684,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","name":"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-16T01:18:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalabhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lalabhai vs State on 31 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189796","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}