IMPORTANT POINT
The detention order must be in accordance with the law and based on a genuine threat to public order. The failure to consider alternative measures, such as cancelling bail, and the delay in passing the detention order can vitiate the detention order.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(A) issue appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the detention order dated 02/10/2023 passed by the Respondent 2 (Annex-’A’) and further be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities-Respondent-3 to release the petitioner-detenu from the detention forthwith”

2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 02.10.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” based on six 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 on the ground of registration of the offences under the Indian Penal Code 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 out of the six offences relied upon by the detaining authority, three offences are registered due to scuffle with neighbours and the offences are pertaining bodily injuries against 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.

3.2 It is submitted that there is also delay of approximately one and half month in passing the detention order after the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 11,08.2023 in the last offence.

4. As against this, learned AGP submitted that the detaining authority had sufficient m