The detaining authority must differentiate between offences affecting 'public order' and 'law and order' when issuing a detention order.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. Kogje, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with the following reliefs;

“[A] Be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.

[B] Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention, at Annexure-A, dt. 02.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 in the interest of justice.”

2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, City: Ahmedabad detaining the petitioner as a “dangerous person”. The grounds of detention would indicate that the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” on the basis of two IPC offences registered against the petitioner with Gaikwad Haveli Police Station.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the nature of offence, as is evident from the gist of the FIRs which is part of the record, would indicate that the FIRs are registered for offences which are arising out of private disputes and therefore, it has nothing to do with the breach of “public order”. Learned advocate submitted that the detention order does not refer to the order of externment, which was operational during which period the offences are alleged against the petitioner. However, the fact that the nature is of private dispute, the possibility of false involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.

4. It is submitted that the first offence is arising out of a love affair of the petitioner with the complainant, because of which, the FIR came to be registered and the second offence is arising out of a private dispute between the Uncle of the petitioner and his father relating to some property. Therefore, in both the cases, considering the role of the petitioner, he has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction despite facing the externment order.

5. Learned advocate further submitted that the offences which are listed in the grounds of detention are of the same Police Station, despite which, the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail in connection with the two offences relied upon by the detaining authority and therefore, it was open for the sponsoring authority to resort to a lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail, which, the detaining authority has not taken into consideration. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction, insofar as the breach of “public order” is concerned, is vitiated.

6. Learned AGP has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that the petitioner is a notorious person, against whom, there already exists an externment order. Despite the externment order being in operation, the petitioner has committed two other offences and thus, considering the habitual nature of the petitioner to commit offence and that too, offences which fall within Chapters – XV and XVI of IPC covered under the definition of “dangerous person” as contemplated under PASA, the order of detention is justified. Learned AGP has also submitted that considering the nature of offences against the petitioner prior to the order of detention and during the period of externment, the action of the detaining authority is justified as the detaining authority was left with no other option but, to resort to detention proceedings.

7. In rejoinder, learned advocate submitted that apart from the listing of seven offences against the petitioner, no other detail has been given with regard to such seven offences and thus, the sponsoring authority has not placed on record of the detaining authority all relevant materials with regard to the seven offences and merely to cause prejudice, has listed the seven offences in the grounds of detention.

8. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the pet