IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in passing the detention order, failure to cancel bail before resorting to preventive detention, and the absence of a nexus between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can render a detention order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under:

“A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ Habeas Corpus or writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 03/10/2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Ann.: A to this petition) in PCB/PASA/DTN/828/2023 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner detenu from the detention forthwith;”

2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 03-10-2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the petitioner – detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 03.10.2023 by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ primarily on the ground of delay in passing the order of detention, as the offences relied upon by the Detaining Authority were registered on 25-08-2023 and 28-08-2023 and in connection with which, both the offecnes, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 02-09-2023, still the order of detention has been passed after period of one month.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that offence involved is that of mobile theft and therefore, does not have potential to disturb the public order.

3.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has lastly submitted that though the Sponsoring Authority is the same as that the Investigating Agency in both the offences, still they have not resorted to cancellation of bail after the petitioner was released on regular bail and therefore, has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors. reported in 2023 (9) SCC 633.

4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the petition on the ground that the petitioner has been involved in similar kind of offence of mobile theft in the very area and such offences are falling under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, he is rightly treated to be ‘Dangerous Person’ required to be detained on account of his anti-social activities in the area within Commissionerate, Surat.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the detention order of the petitioner is based on two offences as is evident from the grounds of detention dated 03-10-2023, details of which is given in tabular form, which is as under:

5.1 The chronology as is evident from the table herein above would indicate that the petitioner in connection with Chokbazar Police Station registered on 25-08-2023, was arrested on 31-08-2023, similarly, for offence, which was immediately registered on 28-08-2023, the petitioner was arrested on 31-08-2023. In both the offences, the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 02-09- 2023.

5.2 Thereafter, the Sponsoring Authority has recorded statement of secret witnesses on 02-10-2023 and verified by the Detaining Authority on 03-10-2023 and therefore, there is a gap of one month after the petitioner being released on regular bail to pass the order of detention on 03-10-2023. The Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reporte