Preventive detention based on ordinary criminal cases without establishing threats to public order is unsustainable.

The petitioner’s mother challenged a preventive detention order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad

The detenue was classified as a "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA), based on two criminal cases registered at Vasna Police Station involving offenses under Sections 307, 294B, 296B, 120B, and 54 of the IPC, and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act

While the detenue had already been granted bail by the competent court in these cases, he was subsequently detained in Surat Jail under the impugned order

1. Whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under the PASA Act, 1985, is sustainable in law

2. Whether the alleged criminal activities of the detenue reached the threshold of disturbing "public order" as opposed to merely affecting "law and order"

The court primarily applied Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, which defines a "dangerous person" as an individual who habitually commits specific IPC offenses

It relied on the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and the principle that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly, as established in *Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu*

Furthermore, it applied the precedent from *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala* (2025) and *Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana*, which mandate that the State should seek cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law rather than resorting to preventive detention unless the activities specifically prejudice the maintenance of "public order"

The Court examined whether the two registered FIRs provided sufficient material for the Detaining Authority's "subjective satisfaction" regarding the disturbance of public order

It noted that while the offenses might fall under "law and order," they did not have a bearing on the maintenance of "public order" or tranquility at large

The Court reasoned that since the detenue had already been granted bail by a competent court, the Detaining Authority acted mechanically without considering that ordinary criminal law (such as applying for bail cancellation) was sufficient to address the risks

The Court emphasized that preventive detention cannot be used merely to "clip the wings" of an accused when the State fails to resist bail under common law

The Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 23.01.2026, and directed the immediate release of the detenue, provided he was not required in any other case