The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detaining authority must consider the remedy of cancellation of bail and act promptly in passing the order of detention to maintain the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

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

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to kindly admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention dated 06.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-A herein and further Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authority to release the petitioner detenu forthwith from detention.”

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon three IPC offences; however, the gap between the said three offences are of more than four months and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has continuously indulged in the offence.

3. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail in the month of July 2023, but the detention order was passed in the month of September 2023 and therefore, there is a delay of almost two months in the passing of the order of detention, which is fatal to the order of detention.

4. Learned advocate lastly submitted that though the lesser drastic remedy was available with the detaining authority; still, the detaining authority has not resorted to cancellation of bail.

5. Learned AGP has objected to the grant of petition and submitted that more than three IPC offences have been registered against the petitioner, which are covered under the Chapters mentioned in the definition clause of “dangerous person”, as contemplated under the PASA Act and therefore, the moment the petitioner is arraigned as an accused, the order of detention would stand justified.

6. Learned AGP has further submitted that previously also, the anti-social activities of the petitioner has come to the knowledge of the State and therefore, he was ordered to be externed in the years 2017 and 2019; still, the petitioner has continued to indulge in one offence or the other.

7. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” by the impugned order of detention dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon three offences registered against the petitioner, the details of which, in tabular form, are as under;

8. The aforesaid details would indicate that the first two offences relied upon by the detaining authority are reported in the months of October and November of 2022, whereas, the last offence was reported on 19.03.2023. In connection with the first offence of the year 2022, the petitioner was arrested on 17.10.2022 and released on bail on 18.10.2022, whereas, in connection with the offences at Sr. Nos. 2 & 3 above, the petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2023 and was enlarged on bail on 06.07.2023.

9. The aforesaid chronology would indicate that after the release of the petitioner in the year 2022, it was open for the sponsoring authority to object to the bail of