IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the principle that preventive detention should be invoked only when there is a clear impact on public order, and the detaining authority should consider lesser drastic remedies before resorting to preventive detention laws.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(a) be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.

(b) be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ of Habeas Corpus and or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention at Annexure-A dated 26.09.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 in the interest of justice.

(c) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this Special Civil Application, grant stay as to the further implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order of detention at Annexure-A dated 26.09.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 in the interest of justice.

(d) xxx xxx xxx”

2. The challenge is to the order of detention dated 26.09.2023 passed by the respondent– detaining authority viz. the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, 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. Learned advocate for the petitioner challenging the order of detention has argued that though the detaining authority has relied upon three offences registered with Hajira Police Station, Jahangira Police Station and Ichhapor Police Station, but none of the offences are of a nature where the public order appears to have been disturbed. It is submitted that all the three offences are arising out of private dispute with regards to the settlement of accounts in their trading business.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail in each of the offences, whereas the detaining authority has taken into consideration the lesser drastic remedy available rather than passing the order of detention.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the order of detention has been passed on the very next day of his release on regular bail in connection with the last offence registered with Ichhapore Police Station and thereafter, the statement of secret witnesses were recorded on 25.09.2023, verified on 26.09.2023 and the order of detention was passed on the very same day. Therefore, the application of mind is made in mechanical manner to arrive at the subjective satisfaction.

6. As against that, learned AGP has objected to grant of the petition by submitting that the petitioner has committed three offences which are falling under Chapters 16 and 17 of the IPC and therefore, the detaining authority was justified in treating the petitioner as a ‘dangerous person’ as he was repeatedly indulging in such offences.

7. Learned AGP submitted that the detaining authority has also taken into consideration the aspect that the petitioner would continue to indulge in the similar offences as and when he enlarged on regular bail.

It is also submitted that the detaining authority has rightly relied upon the statement of the secret witnesses wherein it is indicated that over and above the offences registered against the petitioner, the petitioner is also indulging in such activities, which are amounting to disturbing the public order.

8. Having Considering the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the petitioner has been detained by the impugned order of detention dated 26.09.2023, where the grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon three IPC offences, which are in tabular form given as under: