IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention should only be resorted to when the alleged activities of the detenue pose a threat to public order, and alternative remedies, such as cancellation of bail, should be considered before invoking preventive detention.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“B) That this Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow this present Special Civil Application by issuing appropriate writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention Anx-A dated 26.09.2023 passed by respondent no.2.”

2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, 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 as registration of the offences under IPC Sections 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 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 that it is not possible to hold 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.

3.1 It is submitted that the offences are pertaining theft of mobile phones of private individuals 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 theft of mobiles. Not only that, there are other supporting evidences also which the detaining authority has taken into consideration like drawing of panchnama, which led to discovery of mobile phones of which theft was committed. The two FIRs registered against the petitioner are under Chapter-16 and 17 of 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 FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations a