IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for a proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, and the importance of providing legible documents to the detainee for making a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ, order or directions of this Hon’ble High Court, quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 30/09/2023 at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition placing the petitioner under preventive detention, in purported exercise of their powers under the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985, as being illegal, null and void and further be pleased to released the petitioner forthwith.”

1.1 Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 30.09.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Sabarkantha, Himatnagar, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” based on two offences registered against him.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on three grounds. Firstly, learned advocate has submitted that the offenses relied upon by the detaining authority are separated by period of one year and two months and therefore, there is no live link between two offenses to treat the petitioner as continuously indulging in similar offense to be treated as bootlegger. Secondly, learned advocate has argued that though the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the detaining authority has not resorted to the lesser drastic remedy. Thirdly, it is argued that though the detaining authority has stated in the order of detention that the so called antisocial activities has resulted in damage to public health and consequently, breach of the public order however, there is no material on record to justify such conclusion.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that over and above two offenses relied upon by the detaining authority against the petitioner, there are three more offenses of similar nature where the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused and therefore, the detaining authority was justified to conclude that the petitioner is a listed as bootlegger and his antisocial activities were required to be curtailed.

4. Heard advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The contention raised by the petitioner regarding the snapping of the live link, it would be pertinent to refer to two offenses on which the detaining authority has relied upon. The details of which in tabular form are as under:-

5. The perusal of the aforesaid chronology would indicate that the first offense is registered at Chithoda Police Station on 01.05.2022, whereas second offense registered at Himatnagar “A” Division Police Station is on 16.07.2023. Therefore, there is a gap of one year and two months between two offenses and therefore, the live link between two offenses is snapped. Therefore, the court may rely on the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in AIR 2022 S.C. 4715, the Apex Court has held as under;

“11. We are persuaded to allow this appeal on the following two grounds:

(i) Delay in passing the order of detention from the date of proposal thereby snapping the "live and proximate link" between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention & failure on the part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner.

(ii) The detaining authority remained oblivious of the fact that in both the criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority for the purpose of passing the order of de