Preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and cannot be used to circumvent ordinary criminal procedure or to keep a person in custody who has been granted bail, unless the material proves a significant threat to public order.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. The detenue came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 06/04/2026 passed by the respondent authority, as a cyber offender as defined under Section 2(ba) 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 detenue has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3. This Court has heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent-State Authorities.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was no material available with the detention authority to indicate as to how the public health or public order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner. Thus, in absence of any such material on record, the order of detention ought not have been passed. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and prima facie the order is passed mechanically.

4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order was executed upon the petitioner and presently he is detained in the Jail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP, opposing the present petition contended that the detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected at the society at large. Hence, 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 Surat and lastly prayed to dismiss the present petition.

6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the core issue arises 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 or not?

7. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the concerned authority. It appears that the order impugned was executed upon the detenue and presently he is detained in jail. In the grounds of detention, reference of one criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and and 54 of BNS and under Sections 66(d) of the IT Act registered with Limbayat Police Station against the detenue.

7.1. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the activities of the detenue as a “cyber offender” affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained under the provisions of the the Act of 1985. Undisputedly, in the aforesaid alleged offences, the detenue was granted bail by the concerned court.

8. Considering the impugned order, it appears that the provisions of Section 2(ba) of the Act of 1985 is referred by the concerned authorities. Hence, the same is required to be reproduced. The same reads as under:

“(ba) “cyber offender” means a person who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offence punishable under Chapter XI of the Information Technology Act, 2000”

9. After consideration of the available material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of one case, 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 considered opinion, the said offences do not have