Preventive detention cannot be invoked for ordinary law and order issues without evidence of prejudice to public order.

The petitioner, Harsh Balvirsinh Sikarwar (Rajput), challenged a detention order dated 31.01.2026 issued by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA)

The grounds for detention were based on a single criminal case registered on 08.01.2026 under Sections 65(a)(e), 116-b, 81, and 83 of the Prohibition Act

The Detaining Authority classified the petitioner as a "bootlegger" whose activities were prejudicial to "public order"

At the time of the hearing, the petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Vadodara, despite having been granted regular bail in the underlying criminal case by a competent court

1. Whether the order of detention passed under the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law given the material available to the Detaining Authority

2. Whether the activities of the petitioner, based on a single prohibition case, satisfy the legal threshold of being "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as defined under Section 3 of the Act

The Court applied Section 2(b) of the Gujarat PASA Act, 1985, which defines a "bootlegger" as one involved in illegal liquor activities

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

and the principle that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly, as established in *Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu*

The Court further applied the doctrine from *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala* (AIR 2025 SC 2868), *SK. Nazneen*, and *Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana*, which holds that where ordinary criminal law (such as cancellation of bail) provides sufficient remedy, the extraordinary measure of preventive detention should not be resorted to

The Court examined whether the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the disturbance of "public order" was legally sound.

It noted that the detention was based on a single prohibition case where the petitioner had already secured regular bail

The Court reasoned that such offences do not automatically have a bearing on the maintenance of "public order" as opposed to "law and order"

Following the Supreme Court's mandate in *Dhanya M.*, the Court observed that the state should have moved for cancellation of bail if they perceived a threat, rather than using the hard law of preventive detention to "clip the wings" of an accused

The Court concluded that the authority reached a flawed subjective satisfaction, as the material did not indicate how the petitioner’s actions disturbed public tranquility or health at large

It held that the material was insufficient to prove that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, rendering the detention order illegal and invalid

The Court directed the immediate release of the petitioner from Central Jail, Vadodara, provided he is not required in any other case, and made the Rule absolute