Preventive detention requires a clear link between current threats and past offenses; reliance on stale offenses for detention is insufficient to uphold public order.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

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

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ or any other appropriate, writ order or direction and be pleased to quashed and set aside the order of detention order Vide GMJA/PASA No.23/2023 dated 02/08/2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 under the provision of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 as being illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary, suffers from total non application of mind and violate of Article 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.

(B) The applicant is in Judicial Custody therefore affidavit of the applicant may kindly be dispensed with.”

2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 02-08-2023 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 02.08.2023 by the District Magistrate, Jamnagar detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ by relying upon six FIR registered against the petitioner as IPC offences.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner at the outset has challenged the detention of the petitioner on the ground that along with the grounds of detention, the documents are supplied to substantiate the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. However, many of the pages in the documents are hardly legible and thereby precluded the petitioner from his valuable right to understand grounds of detention and make necessary representation.

3.2 In this connection, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of the State of Manipur and ors. v/s. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand and another passed in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.2420 of 2022 dated 19-10-2022, wherein the Apex Court has held that non-supply of legible documents supporting the detention is fatal to the detention order.

3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon the stale offences particularly very first offence on which reliance placed is of the year 2020. Thereafter, there are no offences against the petitioner till in the year 2022, when three offences were registered and thereafter, two offences which were registered in the year 2023. Therefore, as there is no live-link between the offences registered in the year 2020 and 2022, the petitioner cannot be considered as habitual offender.

3.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mallada K. Sri Ram v/s. the State of Telangana and ors. reported in 2023 Cri.LJ 697 .

4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the petition on the ground that grounds of live-link cannot be raised by the petitioner particularly considering the fact that the petitioner is consistently indulging in offences registered in the year 2022, when three offences were registered and two offences in the year 2023 in quick succession.

4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that detail narration of the manner, in which the offences have been taken place and the involvement of the petitioner in such offences would definitely attract the requirement of definition of "Dangerous Person" and therefore, the Detaining Authority was justified in passing the detention 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 six offences as is evident from the grounds