IMPORTANT POINT
Mere fact that order narrates detenue as a dangerous person without any materials, conclusion cannot be drawn that detenue is a dangerous person.

JUDGMENT

J.B.Pardiwala, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara city, dated 22nd October 2014, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the PASA Act’) and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention.

2. The order of detention along with the grounds supplied to the detenue are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has been detained labelling him as a “dangerous person” as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the PASA Act. The grounds of detention are also suggestive of the fact that the detaining authority has taken into consideration three cases registered with the Panigate Police Station, Vadodara, vide II-CR No.120 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, vide I-CR No.269 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 326 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, and vide I-CR No.270 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The status of all the three F.I.Rs. has been shown as “pending in the court” and “police investigation”. The subjective satisfaction as reflected from the grounds are to the effect that the detenue is habitually indulging in the offences falling within Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. His highhanded actions create a situation of disturbance of public order. On these grounds, the Police Commissioner has ordered detention of the petitioner.

3. Mr. K.G.Shaikh, the learned advocate appearing for the detenue submitted that the order of detention is malicious, unjust and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that there is no material available with the detaining authority to indicate that the detenue is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(c) of the PASA Act nor there is any material or antecedent to show that he is a habitual offender and involved in antisocial activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is his case that this order of detention is nothing but abuse of power at the hands of the Police Commissioner.

4. On the other hand, this petition has been vehemently opposed by Mr.Alpesh Bhatt, the learned AGP appearing for the State. According to Mr.Bhatt, there are sufficient grounds to issue the detention order. Learned AGP has submitted that the detention order was issued after careful consideration of the materials available before the detaining authority.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the order of detention deserves to be quashed.

6. I am concerned only with the question as to whether there are sufficient grounds and materials available to detain the detenue in prison without trial in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the PASA Act, describing him as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Act on the basis of the three F.I.Rs. registered against the detenue.

7. On plain reading of the allegations levelled in the F.I.Rs., by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the incidents in question were such which disturbed the public order, peace and tranquility.

8. I am of the view that merely because three offences are registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Police Act that by itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the public order has been disturbed.

9. At this stage, it would be expedient to quote the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ramesh Vandha Modhwadiya through brother, Laxmanbhai Vandha vs. State of Gujarat, 2009(3) GLH 296 wherein in paragraph 11, the Division Bench has observed as under:-

“11. PASA Act has been enacted with a clear o