Preventive detention requires clear evidence of a threat to public order, not merely the existence of criminal charges, to justify the detention.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. The present petition is directed against the order of detention dated 16.10.2024 passed by the passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby the respondent - detaining authority has detained the petitioner - detenue as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act.

2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr.Arjunsingh Chauhan and Ms.Jirga Jhaveri learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respective parties.

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 two FIRs (i) for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 370(A)(2) of IPC dated 18.02.2024 registered with Vesu Police Station, Surat and (II) for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act dated 03.06.2024 registered with Vesu Police Station, Surat and that by itself cannot bring the case of the petitioner - detenue within the purview of definition under Section 2(g) of the Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner – detenue further submitted that the illegal activities 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 statements of the witnesses and the registration of the above FIRs, no other relevant and cogent material is on record which would show that the alleged anti-social activities 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 activities of the petitioner - detenue with respect to the criminal cases 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 cases, 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. It is also submitted that the detaining authority has also not applied its mind to the fact that the petitioner – detenue is released on bail in all the offences.

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 even supplied to the petitioner – detenue, which indicate that the detenue is in the habit of indulging into activities as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Surat.

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 FIRs 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(g) of the Act. Unless and u