Preventive detention cannot be invoked for liquor offences without evidence of threat to public order.

The petitioner, Raj Harish Thakor, challenged a detention order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City

The order classified the petitioner as a “bootlegger” under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA)

The detention was based on a single criminal case registered on 14.01.2026 under Sections 65(e) and 108 of the Prohibition Act, for which the petitioner had already been granted bail by a competent court

The petitioner was subsequently detained at Mehsana Central Jail

Whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law based on the material available

Whether the activities of the petitioner as a “bootlegger” constituted a threat to the maintenance of "public order" as opposed to merely "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 protections under Articles 226 and 227

The Court invoked the precedent of Dhaya 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 is an exception to Article 21

The rule dictates that where ordinary criminal law (such as cancellation of bail) provides sufficient means to address apprehensions, extraordinary detention laws should not be resorted to

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

Analyzing the grounds of detention, the Court noted that the subjective satisfaction was reached based on a single case under the Prohibition Act

It reasoned that such individual offences do not necessarily have a bearing on the maintenance of "public order"

Following the Supreme Court's rationale in Dhaya M., the Court observed that the State failed to seek cancellation of the petitioner's bail in the substantive offence and instead mechanically resorted to preventive detention

The Court concluded that the nexus between the petitioner's acts and a threat to public order was not established, rendering the satisfaction of the authority legally invalid

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 02.02.2026, and directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case

Rule was made absolute