JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(B) Your Lordships Please To Be quash and set aside the detention order bearing No. PCB/PASA/DTN/820/2023 dated 30.09.2023, Annexure-A to this petition and further be pleased to release the detenue forthwith.”

2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 30.09.2023 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 30.09.2023 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 Kapodra and Utran Police Station.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that the detaining authority has relied upon two offenses which are registered in the year 2021 and 2023 respectively and therefore, there is no live link between two offenses to treat the petitioner as a habitual offender and therefore, treat him as a “dangerous person.” Learned advocate has submitted that the detaining authority has acted in hot haste and has not perused the documents annexed alongwith the grounds of detention as the detaining authority has undertaken the verification of the statements of secret witnesses which is part of the proposal on 30.09.2023 and on the day i.e. on 30.09.2023, the order of detention is passed.

4. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader has objected to the grant of the petition by submitting that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in two IPC offenses which are falling under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC and therefore, the detaining authority has rightly treated the petitioner to be a dangerous person. Learned AGP submitted that the statements of the secret witnesses were already recorded and only the verification was carried out on 30.09.2023 and therefore, it cannot be said that the detaining authority had no occasion to apply its mind and arrive at subjective satisfaction.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has been detained as a dangerous person by the impugned order detention dated 30.09.2023 by the detaining authority, Commissioner of Police, City Surat. The detaining authority in the grounds of detention has referred to and relied upon two offenses registered with Kaproda and Utran Police Stations, the details of which in tabular form are as under:

6. The perusal of the aforesaid chronology would indicate that the FIR registered at Kapodra Police Station is of the offense dated 23.07.2021, wherein the petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2021 and thereafter released on bail on 26.10.2021, whereas the second offense was registered on 20.08.2023 for which the petitioner was apprehended on 25.08.2023. The Court is of the view that the gap between first offense and the triggering offense is two years and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is continuously indulging in IPC offenses, thereby treating him as a habitual offender.

7. In the opinion of the Court and as is held by the Apex Court in case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, AIR 2022 SC 4715, t