The court emphasized the need for convincing reasons and justifiable material to justify preventive detention, and the availability of alternative remedies such as cancellation of bail or appeal to a higher court.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

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

“(a) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus be issued, the order of detention passed by Commissioner of Police, Surat, order No.PCB/DTN/PASA/723/2023 dated 29-08-2023 may be set aside the respondents be directed to get the Vikram S/o. Dipak Alias Dipakrav Rout at liberty forthwith. (Anne. ‘A’)

1.1 Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” based on solitary offence registered against him, the details of which are as under:-

2. 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 solitary offence under the Prohibition Act cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(b) 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. Further, 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.

3. 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 solitary criminal case had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large.

3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pesala Nookaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2023), 14 SCC, 641.

4. Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2(b) 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.

4.1 Learned AGP submitted that the impugned order of detention passed is in consonance with the guidelines framed pursuant to the various directions issued by this Court and as per Clause-27, the order of detention does contain the individual role of the detenue and therefore also, the order of detention being in consonance with the guidelines framed under the direction of this Court, the detention is required to be upheld.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the State could have resorted to ordinary law by filing cancellation of bail application and that would have been sufficient to prevent the petitioner from indulging in further offence, particularly when the petitioner has been granted bail in connection with the offence on which the detaining authority has relied upon to arrive at a subjective satisfaction.

6. 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 cannot have any bearing on the public