The reasonableness of the satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be questioned in a Court of law, nor can the adequacy of the material on which the said satisfaction purports to rest be examined in a Court of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed the petition through his father challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21.3.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, detaining the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “PASA”).

2. It appears from the impugned order of detention that the petitioner was involved in two cases namely FIR being ICR No.86/2019 registered at the Satellite Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 and 114 of IPC and the FIR being ICR No.11196022200118/2020, registered at Isanpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 307, 323 and 120B of IPC and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act. The detaining authority – respondent No.1 after considering the papers of investigation in the said FIRs and also the statements of the witnesses recorded in camera, whose identity was not disclosed, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a “dangerous person” within the meaning of Section 2(C) of the said Act and his activities were likely to affect the maintenance of public order.

3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Ms.Subhadra Patel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is without application of mind and arbitrary, inasmuch as out of the two cases registered against the petitioner, one case pertained to the offence against an individual and in the other case, the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and therefore, it could not be said that the petitioner was habitual in committing the offences, or was a dangerous person. She has placed heavy reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in case of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M. M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police & Ors., reported in (1995) 3 SCC 237 and in case of Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. versus The State Of West Bengal reported in 1970 AIR 852 to submit that maintenance of public order was different from law and order and that in case of offence against an individual, public order could not be said to have been disturbed. Ms.Patel has relied upon the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Vijay @ Ballu Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat (In LPA No.454 of 2020 dt. 31.8.2020).

4. However, the learned AGP Ms.Bhatt for the respondent supporting the impugned order submitted that the respondent authorities, after having been satisfied that the petitioner was a “dangerous person” and his activities were likely to affect the maintenance of the public order, had passed the impugned order of detention and that the Court should not interfere with the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the respondent authorities.

5. On 29.10.2020, when the Court was in the midst of the dictation, Ms.Patel requested the Court to adjourn the further dictation as she wanted to cite more judgments. The dictation was resumed on 4.11.2020 after hearing Ms.Patel.

6. In the opinion of the Court, the Law of detention is very well settled by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. As the long title of the said Act suggests, the said Act has been enacted to provide for the preventive detention of bootleggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders, immoral trafficking offenders, and property grabbers for preventing their antisocial and dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The definition of the “dangerous person” as contained in Section 2(c) reads as under :

“dangerous person” means a person, who either by himself or as a member of leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959.”

7. Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government and the authorities authorized by the State Government to detain any pers