IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement of a live and proximate link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention, and the need for prompt action in passing the detention order to prevent the detenu from indulging in anti-social activities.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under:

“(A) Your Lordship please to be quash and set aside the detention order bearing No. PCB/ PASA/DTN/769/2023 dated 14.09.2023, Annexure-A to this petition and further be pleased to release the detenue forthwith, and

(B) Your Lordship please to be pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honorable Court may further be pleased to release the detenue from detention, and

(C) Your Lordship please to be grant any other relief or pass any other order, which the Honorable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 14-09-2023 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.

3. Essentially challenge is made to the order of detention dated 14.09.2023 by the Police Commissioner, Surat detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ by relying upon three FIR registered against the petitioner as IPC offences.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that offences on which, the Detaining Authority has relied upon are registered at the gap of one year each and therefore, there is no live-link between each of the offences to consider the petitioner to be continuously committing offences, cannot be treated to be habitual offender to attract definition of ‘Dangerous Person’.

3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged in each of the offences on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration lessor drastic remedy available for resorting to cancellation of bail before passing the order of detention.

3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has lastly submitted that even on merits, there is no sufficient evidence to consider the petitioner as having participated in the offences as in the first and third offence, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of confessional statement and in the second offence, only connecting the evidence, recovery of certain gas cylinders from the petitioner. It is submitted that this is not sufficient to treat the petitioner as habitual offender.

4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the petition on the ground that three offences registered against the petitioner falling within Chapter-XVI and XVII of the IPC and therefore, clearly attract definition of ‘Dangerous Person’ as contemplated under the PASA Act.

4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that the Detaining Authority has also relied upon statement of secret witnesses by invoking Section-9(2) of PASA Act and content of such statement would categorically indicate disturbance in Public Order.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the detention order of the petitioner is based on three offences as is evident from the grounds of detention dated 14-09-2023 by the Police Commissioner, Surat, details of which is given in tabular form, which is as under:

5.1 The Cour