### Preventive detention cannot be invoked for law and order issues unless public order is prejudicially affected. Summary: The High Court of Gujarat quashed a detention order passed under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, against a person classified as a "dangerous person." The Court ruled that the registration of two criminal cases (including murder and robbery) did not automatically justify preventive detention. It held that the detaining authority failed to demonstrate how the petitioner’s activities adversely affected "public order" rather than mere "law and order." Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and should not be used to circumvent ordinary criminal law, especially when the accused has already been granted bail by competent courts.

The petitioner’s son (the "detenue") was preventively detained by an order dated 10.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City

He was classified as a "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA Act") based on his involvement in two criminal cases registered between February 2024 and August 2025 involving offenses under the IPC (Sections 302, 392, etc.), the BNS, and the SC/ST Act

The petitioner challenged the detention, arguing it was passed without application of mind and that the alleged offenses did not disturb "public order"

1. Whether the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority—that the detenue's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order"—was legally sustainable

2. Whether the state should have resorted to preventive detention when the detenue had already been granted bail in the underlying criminal cases

The Court primarily applied Section 2(c) of the PASA Act, 1985, which defines a "dangerous person" as one who habitually commits specific offenses under the IPC or Arms Act

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

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine from *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala* (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which holds that the state should move for cancellation of bail rather than preventive detention if ordinary criminal law provides sufficient means to address the apprehension

The Court analyzed the nexus between the detenue's past criminal record and the maintenance of "public order."

It observed that the two cited cases, while serious, did not demonstrate a disturbance to public tranquility or safety at large

The Court reasoned that the Detaining Authority failed to explain how these incidents adversely affected the general public order as opposed to mere "law and order"

Critically, the Court found that since the detenue had been granted bail by a competent court

the authorities should have challenged the bail or sought its cancellation rather than circumventing ordinary criminal procedure via the PASA Act

The mechanical application of detention without material evidence of a threat to public order rendered the subjective satisfaction of the authority invalid

The Court held that the alleged activities did not meet the threshold for prejudice to "public order" and that the order lacked legal validity

The Court directed the immediate release of the detenue from Bhuj Jail, provided he is not required in any other case