The detaining authority must act with urgency and provide a satisfactory explanation for any delay in passing a detention order. The registration of FIRs alone cannot establish a nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed essentially challenging an order of detention passed by the the detaining authority Commissioner of Police, Surat City on 25.08.2023 detaining the petitioner as a "Dangerous person" on the basis of three offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the nature of offence alleged against the petitioner is that of a private complaint where no breach of public order can be said to have taken place.

3. Learned advocate submitted that offences were registeed in quick succession and that too at the behest of same person. It is also submitted that the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, there is no reference to the option available to the detainign authority as the ordinary law would be sufficient to prevent the petitioner from indulging into so called anti-social activity and even if the petitioner being arraigned as an accused is the ground with the detaining authority, the petitioner has been released on bail in last offence 06.04.2023 whereas order of detention was passed on 25.08.2023 and therefore, the order of detention is passed belatedly. Thereby, vitiating the order of detention itself.

4. Learned AGP has objected to the petition by submitting that the offences registered against the petitioner are falling in the category as specified in the definition of ‘Dangerous person’ in PASA. In fact the gist of the offences registered against the petitioner and produced in the grounds of detention clearly indicates conduct of the petitioner being anti-social and thereby disturbing the public order. Therefore, the detention order is justified.

4.1 Learned AGP also submitted that in the order itself the satisfaction is recorded that in view of the petitioner is having been granted bail could continue to indulge in the offence and therefore the authority was left with no option but to pass an order of detention.

4.2 Learned AGP lastly submitted that an order of detention was passed against the petitioner in the year 2020 also, despite this, the petitioner is involved in such activity which is antisocial.

5. In rejoinder learned advocate for the petitioner makes a statement at bar that the order of detention was passed against the petitioner, but the same was under the Prohibition Act. However, the same was not approved by the State government.

6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, petitioner has been detained as Dangerous person by an order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City.

6.1 The grounds of detention indicates that the detaining authority has relied upon the three IPC offences registered against the petitioner. The details of which in tabular form are as under;

6.2 The chronology mentioned herein above would indicates that all the offences registered against the petitioner in quick succession. The first offence was registered with Nikol Police station on 19.03.2023, in which petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2023 and released on bail on 03.06.2023. On the very day another offence was registered in Odhav Police Station, in which petitioner was arrested on same day i.e. 19.03.2023 and released on bail on 06.04.2023 and in Odhav Police Station only another