The need for a live link between offences to justify detention as a dangerous person under PASA and the requirement of disturbance to public order in the nature of the offences.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. Kogje, J.

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

“(A) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.

(B) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this present Special Civil Application by issuing appropriate writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention, Annexure-A, dated 01.09.2023 passed by respondent No.2.”

2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 01.09.2023 passed by the detaining authority, the Commissioner of Police, City: Surat, detaining the petitioner as a “dangerous person”.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the grounds of detention indicate that the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” on the basis of two IPC offences registered against him with Amroli Police Station.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the nature of offence in both the cases is such that it could be treated as a dispute between private individuals and will not have any effect on “public order”. It is submitted that the first offence was so trivial in nature that immediately after arrest, the police, on their own, enlarged the petitioner on bail on his personal bond and therefore, there is no question of disturbance of “public order” at the instance of the petitioner.

5. It is submitted that the second offence is arising out of a private dispute and the FIR so registered would indicate that at the root of the matter is an old dispute, approximately 1½ years old, and therefore, this also cannot be treated as an offence causing disturbance to “public order”.

6. Learned advocate submitted that in both the offences, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail, firstly, by the police and secondly, by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The detaining authority has not resorted to a lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail and therefore, the continuous detention is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate submitted that there is no live link between the two offences and the time gap between the two offences is approximately five months.

7. Learned AGP has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that the petitioner has been detained on the basis of two offences, which are covered under the Chapters mentioned in the definition clause of “dangerous person”, as contemplated under the PASA and therefore, the moment the petitioner is arraigned as an accused, the order of detention would stand justified. Learned AGP also submitted that previously also, i.e. in June 2022, the petitioner was detained under PASA. Despite this history, immediately after coming out of previous detention, the petitioner got indulged in yet another offence and therefore, the order of detention is required to be maintained.

8. In rejoinder, learned advocate submitted that such order of previous detention has been quashed by a reasoned order dated 30.08.2022 passed by this Court.

9. 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 impugned order of detention dated 01.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, City: Surat. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon two IPC offences registered against the petitioner with Amroli Police Station, the details of which, in tabular form, are as under;