The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detaining authority should act with urgency in cases involving activities that can be termed antisocial, and unreasonable delay in passing the detention order vitiates the detention.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

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

“(B) To issue a writ or directions, quashing the order of detention bearing no. KMARMANK/PCB/DTN PASA/455/2023 dated 29/08/2023 passed by the respondent no.2-Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City-Ahmedabad and set the petitioner at liberty;”

2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” on the basis of two FIR’s registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of the offences under IPC Sections by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits 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.

3.1 It is submitted that except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large.

3.2 It is submitted that the offences are pertaining vehicle theft and will therefore not amounting to breach of public order as no where in the grounds of detention, it is coming out that the sporadic act of the petitioner to commit the offences of bodily injuries has caused disturbance to public order. In any case, option was always available to the detaining authority to resort to cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of almost one and half months in passing the order of detention and therefore, the detention order itself is vitiated.

3.4 It is submitted that both the offences were registered on the same day and the petitioner was released on bail very next day in both the offences.

3.5 Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in case of Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1984) 3 SCC, 14.

4. As against this, learned AGP submitted that the detaining authority had sufficient material on the record to pass the order of detention, particularly reference to the same is made by the detaining authority in the very order of detention where the detaining authority has referred to the fact that it was the petitioner who had himself confessed to commission of theft of vehicle. Not only that, there are other supporting evidences also which the detaining authority has taken into consideration like drawing of panchnama, which led to discovery of mobile phones of which theft was committed.

5. Having considered the rival submission of both the sides and perused the documents on record, it appears that the detaining authority, by relying upon two offences, has detailed the petitioner, the details of which are as under: