Kailash Rathi cannot be called bootlegger: HC

Ahmedabad: Kailash Rathi is one of the biggest suppliers of illicit liquor to dry Gujarat and has been booked for bootlegging on numerous occasions in different districts. However, Gujarat high court has held that he cannot be called a bootlegger as he has not been convicted for this crime.
The high court stated this while quashing a detention order passed against Rathi by Narmada district collector in April 2014 under Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA).The authority had ordered the bootlegger's detention under PASA on basis of a series of FIRs registered against him under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(b) and 81 of the Prohibition Act for smuggling India-made foreign liquor (IMFL) in huge quantities into Gujarat, mainly through the Rajasthan border.
Rathi, who is based in Rajasthan, accounted for most of the illegal liquor supply to Gujarat. Over 50 FIRs in which he is accused of bootlegging have been filed against him across the state. He has also been arrested on various occasions. He was among the few big liquor suppliers who were arrested after the hooch tragedy of July 2009 in which nearly 150 people died.
The PASA order also mentioned that Rathi was likely to commit the same offence again, if not detained. It sought his detention stating that his freedom could jeopardize public order.
Justice S H Vora, who heard the case, observed that there are enough laws in this land to maintain public order. The charges levelled against Rathi in various FIRs do not appear to be very dangerous for public order. At the most a person accused of such charges can affect law and order situation for a few individuals which cannot be termed as 'public' order. Moreover, for such a situation there is law in place, said Justice Vora.
The high court's conclusion was based on the fact that only FIRs have been filed against Rathi and no court has yet convicted him for these offences. "Therefore, it cannot be said that for the aforesaid offences registered against Rathi, he could considered to be a 'bootlegger', whose preventive detention is must for maintenance of public order. So, the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not a 'bootlegger'," the court order reads.