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

The petitioner, Jay @ Bhuro Kirtibhai Panchal, was preventively detained by an order dated 23/01/2026 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad

The detention was based on the petitioner being classified as a "bootlegger" under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act), following a single FIR registered on 08/11/2025 under Sections 65(A)(E), 81, and 116(B) of the Prohibition Act

The petitioner had already been granted regular bail in the underlying criminal case by the competent court

Currently detained in Surat Jail, the petitioner challenged the order through his wife, alleging a lack of application of mind and insufficient material to prove a threat to public order

Whether the activities of the detenue as a "bootlegger" based on a single FIR were sufficient to justify the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that his detention was necessary for the maintenance of "public order" under Section 3 of the PASA Act

Whether the detention order is sustainable in law when the ordinary criminal law (prosecution and bail) was already in motion

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

It heavily relied on Article 21 and Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly

The court followed the precedents of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, establishing detention as an exception to the rule of liberty

Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which dictates that if an accused is on bail, the State should seek cancellation of bail rather than resorting to preventive detention unless there is a specific threat to public order

The court reasoned that the detaining authority failed to demonstrate how the petitioner’s alleged activities as a bootlegger disturbed "public order" or "public tranquility" as opposed to merely "law and order"

It noted that the detention was based on a single registered case, which was insufficient to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order

The court further observed that since the petitioner was already granted regular bail, the appropriate remedy for the State was to move for cancellation of bail if they feared further offenses, rather than circumventing the ordinary criminal procedure through preventive detention

The court concluded that the material on record did not justify the "hard law" of detention, as the alleged offenses did not have a direct bearing on public order

The petition was allowed, and the detention order dated 23/01/2026 was quashed

The court directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case, and made the Rule absolute