IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention requires a clear demonstration of a threat to public order, not merely the existence of criminal charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Vimal K. Vyas, J.) :

1. The present petition is directed against the order of detention dated 02.04.2024 passed by the respondent – detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’) by detaining the petitioner – detenue as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.

2. Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner – detenue and learned APP appearing for the respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner - detenue submits that the impugned order of detention is required to be quashed and set-aside since the detaining authority has passed the order of detention solely on the ground of registration of four FIRs; (i) for the offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 116B of the Prohibition Act; (ii) for the offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 116B, of the Prohibition Act; (iii) for the offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 116B, 81, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act; (iv) for the offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 116B, 81 of the Prohibition Act; respectively; and that by itself cannot bring the case of the petitioner - detenue within the purview of definition under Section 2(b) of the Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the illegal activities likely alleged to have been carried out or likely to be 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 a breach of law and order. Further, except the statement of the witnesses and the registration of above FIR, no other relevant and cogent material is on record which would show that the alleged anti-social activity of the petitioner - detenue fall under the category of breach of public order. Learned advocate further submitted that it is not possible to hold, on the basis of the facts of the present case, that the activity of the petitioner - detenue with respect to the criminal case had affected and disturbed the social fabric of the society, eventually which would become threat to the very existence of the normal and routine life of the people at large or that on the basis of the registration of criminal case, the petitioner - detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for the whole system to exist, as a system governed by rule of law, by disturbing the public order.

4. Learned APP for the respondent - State has supported the detention order passed by the detaining authority and has submitted that sufficient materials and evidences were found during the course of investigation and the same were also supplied to the petitioner – detenue, which indicate that the petitioner - detenue is in the habit of indulging into activities as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and the same deserves to be upheld by this Court.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the documents and materials available on record, prima facie, it is found that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations levelled against the petitioner - detenue cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the petitioner - detenue within the realm of the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. Unless and until there is some material to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus goes in peril, disturbing the public order at the instance of such person, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the detenue is a per