Preventive detention requires a clear distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'; mere registration of criminal cases without evidence of affecting the community at large is insufficient to justify detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.

ORAL ORDER

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

1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 12.04.2026 passed by the respondent authority, as a “cruel person” as defined under Section 2(bbb) 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. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner – detenue and learned APP appearing 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..

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. In the grounds of detention, a reference of 1 criminal case registered against the applicant, as mentioned in the impugned detention order, was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “cruel 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. The term ‘Cruel Person’ defined under Section 2(bbb) reads as under:

"cruel person" means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of an offence punishable under section 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954;"

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 an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 within a period of 3 years from the date of such conviction who either himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954. Thus, therefore, we are of the firm view that, the activities as alleged would not fall under the definition of ‘cruel person’. After careful consideration of