Preventive detention cannot be invoked for ordinary law and order issues absent impact on public order.

The petitioner, Ghanshyam Chunilal Bhill, was preventively detained following an order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad

The detaining authority classified him as a "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act)

The grounds for detention were based on two criminal cases registered against the detenue between 16.12.2024 and 24.02.2025 involving various sections of the BNS and the G.P. Act

Despite the detenue being granted bail in these cases by competent courts

he was detained in Vadodara Jail

The petitioner challenged the legality of this detention through his wife.

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

Whether the activities of the detenue reached the threshold of being "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as opposed to mere "law and order" issues

The court primarily applied Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, which defines a "dangerous person" as a habitual offender committing specific IPC/BNS chapters over three successive years

It further relied on the principles established by the Supreme Court in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868), emphasizing that preventive detention is an extraordinary power and an exception to Article 21 that must be used sparingly

Additionally, the court cited Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, which stipulate that if ordinary criminal law (such as cancellation of bail) provides sufficient remedy, the State should not resort to extraordinary preventive detention measures

The court found that the detaining authority failed to establish a nexus between the petitioner's criminal cases and a disturbance of "public order" or "public tranquility"

While the authority labelled the petitioner a "dangerous person," the court observed that the two cited cases did not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order at large

The court reasoned that the subjective satisfaction of the authority was flawed because it neglected the fact that the petitioner had already been granted bail by competent courts and the State had not moved for cancellation through ordinary legal channels

Following the Supreme Court's mandate, the court held that preventive detention should not be used to "clip the wings" of an accused when the material available does not meet the high legal threshold of a threat to public order

The court held that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was neither legal nor valid

Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 28.01.2026, and directed the immediate release of the detenue from Vadodara Jail