IMPORTANT POINT
The registration of FIRs alone does not establish a nexus with the breach of public order, and the detaining authority must consider the lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail before passing a detention order.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application;

(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities- Respondent no.3 to release the petitioner - detenue from the detention forthwith (Annexure-A)

(C) XXXX

(D) XXXX

2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the detaining authority-Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad detaining the petitioner as the dangerous person.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the ground of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon three IPC offences registered at Amraiwadi Police Station. However, the nature of offence since registered against the petitioner are not of such nature that it would attract breach of public order.

4. Learned advocate submits that the very first offence is an outcome of an accident where the complainant was driving the truck had collided with an individual who was driving a cycle, because of which, the cyclist lost his life and at that stage, the mob had got together and assaulted the truck driver wherein the petitioner was also part and therefore, such offence cannot be treated the offence which can amount to breach of public order. It is further submitted that the rest of two offences are also arising out of the private dispute, and therefore, has no concern with the public order.

5. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has been released on regular bail by the court of competent jurisdiction, and therefore, the detaining authority ought to have taken into consideration the lesser drastic remedy available.

6. Learned advocate submitted that there are no secret witness statements were recorded by the detaining authority to indicate that the petitioner has been consistently indulging in an activity which is amounting to the breach of public order.

7. As against this, learned advocate A.G.P. has objected to the grant of the petition by submitting that three offences registered against the petitioner are within the Chapter XVI and XVII of IPC and therefore, such actions would clearly attract the definition of the dangerous person as contemplated under PASA.

8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, the petitioner has been detained under impugned order of detention dated 08.09.2023 by the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad and the ground of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon the following offences registered at Amraiwadi Police Station against the petitioner and others, details of which in tabular form are given as under:

9. The perusal of the aforesaid detail would indicate that the petitioner was enlarged in each of the offence by the court of competent jurisdiction lastly 01.09.2023, and thereafter, on 08.09.2023, the detention order has