IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of FIRs alone cannot justify invoking power under section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, and the detaining authority must consider the option of cancellation of bail before resorting to preventive detention.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“a. To allow this petition.

b. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the detention order No.PCB/PASA/DTN/654/2023 dated 03.12.2023 at Annexure-A by the respondent no.2 Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and be further pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner detenue from detention forthwith;

c. to e. XXXXX”

2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 03.12.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” based on two offences registered against him, details of which are as under :-

3. 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 that registration of offences under the Indian Penal Code by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that the alleged illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order situation. Further, except the statement of witnesses, registration of the above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting the alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order.

3.1 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 the activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected the even tempo of society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of the people at large or that on the basis of the criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for the whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

3.2 It is submitted that the offences are pertaining to theft of vehicles of private individuals and will, therefore, not amount to breach of public order, as no where in the grounds of detention, it is coming out that the sporadic acts of the petitioner has caused disturbance to public order. In any case, an option was always available to the detaining authority to resort to cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

4. As against this, learned AGP submitted that the detaining authority had sufficient material on the record to pass the order of detention, particularly reference to the same is made by the detaining authority in the very order of detention where the detaining authority has referred to the fact that it was the petitioner who had himself confessed to commission of theft of vehicles. Not only that, there are other supporting evidence which the detaining authority has taken into consideration viz. the drawing of panchnama, which led to the discovery of muddamal - stolen vehicles. The three FIRs registered against the petitioner are under Chapters – XVI and XVII of the IPC, thereby, attracting the ingredients of “dangerous person”.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that 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 three FIRs cannot have any bearing on “public order” as