IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 requires a nexus with the breach of public order, and alternative remedies should be considered before resorting to preventive detention.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

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

“A. Quash and set aside the order of detention dated 23.09.2023 (Annexure-A), passed by the detaining authority under the provision of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 at post-execution stage as being illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary, suffers from total non-application of mind and violative of Art. 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India;

B. Stay the further operation, and implementation of the detention order passed by the respondent no.2 and direct the respondents and/or their officers, agents, servants, persons etc. to release the petitioner from detention pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;”

2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 23-09-2023 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. Essentially challenge is made to the order of detention dated 23.09.2023 by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ by relying upon two FIR registered against the petitioner as IPC offences.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that incident in connection of which, FIR has been registered and the role played by the petitioner could not amount to disturbance in the public order, but may only be the case of the law and order, for which ordinary law is sufficient to take care of the situation rather than resorting to provision of detention law.

3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of appropriate jurisdiction and the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail available to the Sponsoring Authority and without it, the order of detention has been passed.

3.3 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that order of detention is also vitiated on the ground that material available on the record with the Detaining Authority is not sufficient to arrive at conclusion that the petitioner is Dangerous Person and habitual offender, particularly there is no statement of secret witness recorded to support the case of the Detaining Authority for anti-social activities.

4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the petition on the ground that the petitioner is accused in two offences, which are registered under Chapter-XVI and Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, proximity between two offences and both were registered in the month of August, 2023, was sufficient for the Detaining Authority to declare the petitioner as habitual offender and consequentially ‘Dangerous Person’.

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 23-09-2023, details of which is given in tabular form, which is as under:

5.1 Gist of the FIR relied upon by the Detaining Authority would indicate that the petitioner was allegedly indulging in committing theft by breaking open into shop/house. It app