Preventive detention based on a single criminal case without evidence of prejudice to public order is unsustainable.

The petitioner (detenue) was preventively detained by an order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.

The detention was based on a single FIR registered on 23.09.2025 at Kapurai police station for offences under Sections 65(A)(E), 116(B), and 81 of the prohibition Act.

The petitioner challenged the detention as a "bootlegger" on the grounds that there was no material to show a threat to public order and that the order was passed mechanically.

1. Whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law or lacks subjective satisfaction.

2. Whether the activities of the detenue, based on a single criminal case, satisfy the threshold of being "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as defined under the Act.

The court primarily applied Section 2(b) and Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, defining a "bootlegger" and the criteria for public order.

It relied on the constitutional principle that preventive detention is an extraordinary power and an exception to Article 21, which must be used sparingly (*Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu*).

It further applied the precedent from *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala* (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which holds that the State should seek cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law rather than resorting to preventive detention unless the activities squarely affect public order.

The court examined the grounds of detention and found that the authority’s subjective satisfaction was based solely on one registered case.

The court reasoned that such an offence under the Prohibition Act does not automatically have a bearing on the "maintenance of public order" or "public tranquility."

It observed that the detaining authority failed to provide material evidence showing how the petitioner’s actions affected the society at large beyond simple law-and-order infractions.

Following the Supreme Court's guidance, the court noted that ordinary criminal procedure (such as appealing a bail order) should not be circumvented by using the "hard law" of preventive detention unless the high threshold of "public order" is met.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 06.02.2026, and directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith.