IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention should be considered only when there is a clear nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order, and alternative remedies should be preferred before resorting to detention.

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) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 30/09/2023 passed by the Respondent No. 1 (Annex. A) to this petition) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner detenue from the detention 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 Ahmedabad by which the petitioner has been detained as a ‘dangerous person’ based on two offenses registered with Isanpur Police Station. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon two IPC offenses registered with Isanpur Police Station.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that the nature of offense for which the FIR has been registered do not appear to be arising out of private dispute and has no relation with the public order and therefore, the ordinary law is sufficient to take care of the situation and therefore, petitioner was not required to be detained.

3.1 Learned advocate has also challenged the order of detention on the ground that the petitioner in each of the offenses has been enlarged on bail on the very date of his arrest and therefore, the sponsoring authority as well as detaining authority ought to have resorted to the lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail before passing the order of detention.

4. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader has objected to the grant of the petition by submitting that the detaining authority has relied upon two offenses registered under the IPC, particularly under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC and therefore, petitioner is rightly treated as a dangerous person and therefore, the ordered to be detained.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 30.09.2023 passed by the detaining authority, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and the grounds of detention relies upon two offenses registered with Isanpur Police Station, the details of which in tabular form are as under:

6. The Court has firstly taken into consideration the fact that in connection with the first offense registered with Isanpur Police Station, the petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2023 and was immediately released on the same day. Similarly, in the second offense, the petitioner was arrested on 08.09.2023 and was released on the very day i.e. on 08.09.2023. In the opinion of the Court, the detaining authority ought to have taken into consideration the fact that before passing the order of detention, the cancellation of bail of the detenue ought to have been preferred as is held by the Apex Court in case of Shaik Nazeen vs. State of Telangana and Others, 2023 (9) SCC 633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in Para-19 as under:

“19. In any case, the State is not without a remedy, as in case t