( 1 ) THE petition is in the nature of prayer for anticipatory bail. In the realm of punitive jurisdiction when a person is sought to be arrested and deprived of his liberty he has a right to move the court and pray for grant of bail. Under the amended provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (sec. 438) an accused person may even move for anticipatory bail and in fit cases the courts do grant such a prayer. However in the sphere of preventive detention where the executive intends to exercise its power for the purposes of restraining a person from indulging in certain types of anti-social and dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order will it be open to the court to entertain a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the executive authority not to execute the warrant of detention against the petitioner ? This in substance is the question which is required to be decided in this petitions.

( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that the District Collector Khedarespondent No. 1 (it should be District Magistrate Kheda. and not District Collector Kheda) has passed an order directing him to be detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the petitioner the said order has been passed mala fide and without application of mind. Therefore the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the detention order be issued. The petitioner also prays that pending admission and final hearing of the petition the respondent-authority be restrained from detaining him under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner has not mentioned the date on which the order is passed. However it is an admitted position that the order of detention has still not been executed and the petitioner is not put under detention under the impugned order.

( 3 ) THE District Magistrate Kheda has passed the impugned order of detention on the ground that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under sec. 3 of the Act and with a view to prevent him from indulging in such activities as alleged he is sought to be detained. The petitioner seeks assistance of this Court and prays for issuing a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus on the ground that the detaining authority has passed the detention order on legal mala fides i. e. without taking into consideration the provisions of the Act the authority has passed the order to detain the petitioner. It is his further contention that once the detention order is implemented it would amount to wrongful detention of the petitioner by the detaining authority.

( 4 ) IN our opinion whether the order is passed according to the provisions of the Act or whether it is passed by the detaining authority without applying its mind would be an issue which would be required to be. decided after taking into consideration the grounds of detention and the materials which are required to be supplied to the petitioner. But at this stage merely because the petitioner alleges that there are no grounds for detaining him cannot be accepted. In any case? the question whether the detaining authority has applied its mind before passing the detention order can be decided only after verifying the grounds of detention and other materials which are required to be supplied to the petitioner. At this stage if the petitioners contention is accepted and the prayer of the petitioner is granted the purpose of the Act would be frustrated which essentially operates in suspicion jurisdiction.

( 5 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner in para 4 of the petition that the petitioner was last involved in offences punishable under Indian Penal Code on 19-9-1984. However during the course of the arguments it was submitted by the counsel for