IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the principle that preventive detention should only be resorted to when the alleged activities pose a threat to public order and when alternative remedies, such as cancelling bail, have been considered.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions of this Hon’ble High Court, quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 11/10/2023 at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition placing the petitioner under preventive detention, in purported exercise of their powers under the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985, as being illegal, null and void and further be pleased to release the petitioner forthwith”

2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “cruel 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 as registration of the offences under Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Gujarat Animal Preservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(bbb) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, 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. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits error is committed on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order. In fact, there is no supporting document like statement of secret witness in this regard.

3.1 It is submitted that the offences are pertaining theft of animals and cruelty against it and will therefore not amounting to breach of public order as no where in the grounds of detention, it is coming out that the sporadic act of the petitioner has caused disturbance to public order. In any case, 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 offences. Not only that, there are other supporting evidences also which the detaining authority has taken into consideration. The two FIRs registered against the petitioner are under C