JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(B) BE PLEASED to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 02/10/2023 at annexure “A” passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, vide PCB/PASA/DTN/827/223, passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat i.e. the Respondent No. 2 herein, and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner from detention forthwith and set at free, in the interest of justice.”

2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 02.10.2023 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. Under the order of detention dated 02.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, City Surat by which the petitioner has been detained as a ‘dangerous person’ based on two offenses registered with Singanpore Dabholi Police Station.

3. The petitioner has been detained as a dangerous person in view of his involvement in commission of theft of a mobile phone and a motorcycle.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that the offenses in which the petitioner has been involved is not affecting the even tempo of life and therefore, there is no breach of public order for detaining the petitioner. Learned advocate has submitted on merits that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused of bike theft however, the fact is that the petitioner was only a purchaser of the bike, theft of which was committed by another accused.

4.1 It is further submitted that for the co-accused of the very offense, the detaining authority has not passed any order of detention against him. Learned advocate has lastly submitted that on the very next day of his being enlarged on bail, the order of detention has been passed.

5. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader has objected to the grant of the petition by submitting on the ground that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in two offenses which are under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC and therefore, rightly considered as a dangerous person for being habitual offender.

6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has been detained as a dangerous person by detention order dated 02.10.2023. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon two offenses registered with Singanpore Dabholi Police Station, Surat details of which in tabular form are as under:

7. The Court has considered the nature of offense alleged against the petitioner. First being theft of a mobile phone and another being a motorcycle. Both the incidents being sporadic are not sufficient to be treated as having disturbed the even tempo of life so as to disturb the public order. Hence as is held by the Apex Court in case of Pushker Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 852, the case of the petitioner would not fall in the definition of a ‘dangerous person’. The Court observed as follows:

“Does the expression “public order” take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to speci