The detention order must be based on a case where the person has become a threat and menace to society, disturbing the whole tempo of the society and all social apparatus, and a mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. The present petition is directed against the order of detention dated 01.02.2023 passed by the respondent-detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the petitioner-detenu as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

3. Mr. R.R. Sharma, learned advocate for the detenu submitted that the impugned order of detention of the detenu requires to be quashed and set aside because the detaining authority has passed order of detention solely on the ground of registration of two FIRs, first for the offences under Sections 392, 394, 342 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and another for the offence under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act respectively by itself cannot bring the case of the detenu within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenu would not fall under the category of breach of public order. Learned advocate further submitted that it is not possible to hold, on the basis of the facts of the present case, that activity of the detenu with respect to the criminal cases had affected and disturbed the social fabric of society, eventually which would become threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of registration of criminal cases, the detenu had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order. It is also submitted that the detaining authority has also not applied its mind to the fact that the petitioner is released on bail in all offences.

4. Mr. Jay Mehta, learned AGP for the respondent-State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidences were found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenu indicate that detenu is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2(c) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the documents and material available on record of the case, prima facie, it is found that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations levelled against the detenu cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenu within the realm of meaning of section 2(c) of the Act. Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus goes in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the detenu is a person which would fall within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act. Except general statements, there is no material on record which shows that the detenu is acting in such a manner, which would become dangerous