Preventive detention requires clear demonstration of activities affecting public order, not merely law and order.

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

1. The petitioner herein namely Chandrakant @ Bapaji Kantibhai Kuberbhai Panchal came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, as a “dangerous person” as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti- social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred as ‘the Act of

1985).

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati and Mr. L. B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the grounds of detention has no nexus to the “public order”, but is a purely a matter of law and order, as registration of the offence cannot be said to have either affected adversely or likely to affect adverse the maintenance of public order as contemplated under the explanation sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, 1985 and therefore, where the offences alleged to have been committed by the detunue have no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order and his activities could be said to be a prejudicial only to the maintenance of law and order and not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the application contended that, the detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected at the society at large. In such set of circumstances, the Detaining Authority, considering the antecedents and past activities of the detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad.

6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, the issue arise as to whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?

7. The order impugned was executed upon the applicant and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of three criminal cases registered against the applicant (i) for the offence punishable under Sections 75(2), 78(2), 318(4) and 354 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3 (2) of The Gujarat Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2024 dated 20.05.2025 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad and (ii) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 18(4), 316(2) and 354 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3 (2) of The Gujarat Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2024 dated 22.05.2025 registered with Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad and (iii) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 18(4), 316(2) and 354 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3 (2) of The Gujarat Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2024 dated 23.05.2025 registered with Ramol Police Station, Ahmedabad was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “dangerous person” affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985. Admittedly, in all the said offences, the applicant was granted bail.

8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of three criminal cases, the authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenue could be termed to be acting in a manner ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’. In our