Preventive detention based on a single criminal case without impact on public order is unsustainable.

The petitioner, Sohelbhai Salimbhai Rathod, through a friend, challenged a detention order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City

The order was issued under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA Act"), categorizing the petitioner as a "bootlegger" following a single criminal case registered under the Prohibition Act and Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on 29.01.2026

The petitioner had already been granted regular bail by a competent court for the underlying offenses

At the time of the hearing, the petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Rajkot

1. Whether the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority under the PASA Act is sustainable in law given the available material

2. Whether the activities of the petitioner as a "bootlegger" in a single case constituted a threat to "public order" as opposed to mere "law and order"

The court applied Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, which defines a "bootlegger"

It further relied on the constitutional safeguards under Article 226 and 227

Crucially, the court applied the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and others (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which establishes that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and only in rare cases where ordinary criminal law is insufficient

The court also noted that the state should seek cancellation of bail rather than resorting to preventive detention when a person is already enlarged on bail by a competent court

The court found that the Detaining Authority failed to demonstrate how the petitioner’s alleged activities disturbed public health, public order, or public tranquility

The Bench observed that the authority reached a "subjective satisfaction" based on a single criminal case, which did not inherently have a bearing on the maintenance of "public order"

Relying on Apex Court doctrines, the Court reasoned that preventive detention should not be used to "clip the wings" of an accused involved in a criminal prosecution where ordinary law provides sufficient remedies, such as the cancellation of bail

The court concluded that the detention order was passed mechanically without adequate application of mind to whether the petitioner's actions truly prejudiced the society at large

The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not legal or valid as the material was insufficient to prove a threat to public order

The Court directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case

Rule was made absolute