The delay in passing the order of detention and failure to consider the option of resorting to cancellation of bail vitiates the detention 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 detaining authority Commissioner of Police, Surat City on 14.08.2023 detaining the petitioner as a "Dangerous person" on the basis of two offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the contentions of both the FIRs. So far as the first offence is concerned, petitioner is not named in FIR and there is no recovery effected or there is not test identification parade to connect the petitioner to the incident. Therefore, there is no direct evidence. Whereas, in the second offence the registration of which was result of private dispute between two individuals and there is no question of disturbance of publisc order.

2.1 Learned advocate submits that the first offence registered with Udhna Police Station was of the year 2022 and the second offence is of the year 2023 and therefore there is no live link between the two offences.

3. 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. In rejoinder the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the statements of secret witnesses recorded cannot be relied upon as the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would stand vitiated wherein statement of the secret witnesses have not been supplied to the petitioner.

5. 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 14.08.2023 passed by the Surat Police Commissioner.

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

5.2 Perusal of the aforesaid details of the offences would indicate that first offence reported on 28.08.2022 for which the accused was arrested on 29.08.2022 and was released on bail on 19.09.2022 whereas the second offence was reported on 27.07.2023 for which the petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2023 and released on bail on 11.08.2023 and therefore, there is time gap of approximately 11 months. In the opinion of the Court the time gap between two offences relied upon by the detaining authority snaps the live link, so as to issue an order of detention which is essential requirement. In this connection the Court may refer to and rely upon a decision in case of Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura reported in AIR 2022 S.C. 4715 wherein the Court has observed as under;

“11. We are persuaded to allow this appeal on the following two grounds:

(i) Delay in passing the order of detention from the date of proposal thereby snapping the "live and proximate link" between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention & failure on the part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner.

(ii) The detaining authority remained oblivious of the fact that in both the criminal cases relied upon by the detaini