Preventive detention requires a clear distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'; mere criminal infractions that do not affect the community or public interest at large are insufficient to justify detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 05.04.2026 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, 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 petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Arjunsingh B. Chauhan and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP 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 Surat.

6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, the 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?

7. The order impugned was executed upon the applicant and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of one criminal case registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 314 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 66 (C) of the I.T. Act, registered with Limbayat Police Station dated 13.12.2025, was made and further 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 Section 3 of the Act of 1985. Admittedly, in all the said offences, the applicant was granted bail.

8. The term ‘Cyber Offender’ defined under Section 2(ba) reads as under:

"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 careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that, there is no material placed before the authority to establish that the applicant was convicted of offences under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of The Information Technology Act who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offence punishable under Chapter XI of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of said 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 mann