{"id":5645,"date":"2011-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-03T22:32:55","modified_gmt":"2015-05-03T17:02:55","slug":"sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sureshbhai vs State on 31 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sureshbhai 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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/478220\/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. 4782 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\nSURESHBHAI\nKAMABHAI MORI THROUGH HIS BROTHER - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR BM MANGUKIYA  and MS BELA A\nPRAJAPATI for the Petitioner. \nMr. M.R.Mengdey, Assistant\nGOVERNMENT PLEADER for the\nRespondents. \n========================================= \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\n\t\t\tDate\n: 06\/08\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n\t\t\t\tORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tThis<br \/>\npetition is directed against the order of detention dated 6th March,<br \/>\n2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar in exercise of<br \/>\npowers under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention<br \/>\nof Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (The PASA Act), whereby the<br \/>\npetitioner has been detained as a bootlegger.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tMs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Bela Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner has invited<br \/>\nattention to the impugned order of detention to point out that the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has only relied upon four offences registered<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition<br \/>\nAct to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the<br \/>\npetitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and<br \/>\npublic order. It is submitted that except for the aforesaid three<br \/>\noffences, there is no material for the detaining authority to arrive<br \/>\nat a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner<br \/>\nare prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is contended<br \/>\nthat it is settled legal position as held by the Apex Court in a<br \/>\ncatena of decisions that the activities of bootlegging per se cannot<br \/>\nbe said to be prejudicial to maintenance of public health and public<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tOn<br \/>\nthe other hand, Mr. M.R.Mengdey, learned Assistant Government Pleader<br \/>\nhas submitted that the detaining authority has applied his mind to<br \/>\nthe material on record and has arrived at a subjective satisfaction<br \/>\nthat the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to maintenance<br \/>\nof public health and public order and as such, no case is made out<br \/>\nfor intervention by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tA<br \/>\nperusal of the impugned order of detention shows that the detaining<br \/>\nauthority has referred to four offences under the provisions of the<br \/>\nBombay Prohibition Act registered against the petitioner. Thereafter,<br \/>\nthe detaining authority has observed that the petitioner is carrying<br \/>\non anti-social activities and selling foreign liquor and that his<br \/>\nactivities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and<br \/>\npublic order. The detaining authority has thereafter found that<br \/>\ntaking steps under section 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act or powers<br \/>\nof externment under Bombay Police Act are not sufficient to prevent<br \/>\nthe petitioner from carrying on anti-social activities. The<br \/>\npetitioner being a bootlegger within the meaning of section 2(b) of<br \/>\nthe PASA Act, is required to be detained in public interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tAs<br \/>\ncan be seen from the impugned order of detention, though the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has recorded that the activities of the<br \/>\npetitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and<br \/>\npublic order, the order does not indicate as to on what basis the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has arrived at such a conclusion. In the<br \/>\ncircumstances, it is apparent that subjective satisfaction of the<br \/>\ndetaining authority is not based upon any material on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis settled legal position as held by the Supreme Court in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/73077943\/\">Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City<br \/>\nand<\/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>\t\t 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, these offences or the allegations<br \/>\ncannot be said to have created any feeling of insecurity or panic or<br \/>\nterror among the members of the public of the area in question giving<br \/>\nrise to the question of maintenance of public order. The order of<br \/>\ndetention cannot, therefore, be upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tA<br \/>\nDivision 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<br \/>\nheld thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t 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<br \/>\ntotally wanting in the body of the detention order itself.  In large<br \/>\nnumber of cases, the Supreme Court has considered that involvement in<br \/>\nbootlegging activities  even if coupled with violence does not amount<br \/>\nto threat to public order or public health.  The mere mention of<br \/>\nallegations unless they are supported by any material cannot be said<br \/>\nto be material germane for the purpose of arriving at the<br \/>\nsatisfaction with regard to breach of public order or public health.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tOn<br \/>\nthe facts of the present case a perusal of the detention order shows<br \/>\nthat 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 six 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.\t\tThe<br \/>\ndecision 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 \/>\n  For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly<br \/>\nallowed.  The impugned order of detention dated 6th  2009 passed by<br \/>\nthe District Magistrate, Bhavnagar is hereby quashed and set aside<br \/>\nand the detenu Sureshbhai Kamabhai Mori is hereby ordered to be set<br \/>\nat 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 Sureshbhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 Author: Harsha Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/478220\/2009 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4782 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-5645","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>Sureshbhai 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\/sureshbhai-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=\"Sureshbhai 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\/sureshbhai-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=\"2015-05-03T17:02:55+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sureshbhai vs State on 31 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-03T17:02:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1518,\"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\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Sureshbhai 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\":\"2015-05-03T17:02:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-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\":\"Sureshbhai 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":"Sureshbhai 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\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sureshbhai vs State on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-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":"2015-05-03T17:02:55+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sureshbhai vs State on 31 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-03T17:02:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011"},"wordCount":1518,"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\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011","name":"Sureshbhai 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":"2015-05-03T17:02:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-31-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-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":"Sureshbhai 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\/5645","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=5645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}