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

The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City

The order was issued under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA), classifying the petitioner as a "bootlegger" following a single criminal case registered under the Prohibition Act on 11.01.2026

The petitioner was granted regular bail by the trial court in the underlying offence but was subsequently detained and held in Rajkot Jail

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

2. Whether the activities of the petitioner as a "bootlegger" reached the threshold of being "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order"

The court applied Section 2(b) of the PASA Act, 1985, which defines a "bootlegger"

Section 3, which empowers the state to detain individuals to prevent activities prejudicial to the "maintenance of public order"

It relied on the constitutional safeguards under Article 226 and 227

Crucially, the court applied the precedent of Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and others [AIR 2025 SC 2868], which establishes that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly as an exception to Article 21, and that the state should seek cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law rather than resorting to detention when an accused is enlarged on bail

The court examined whether the Detaining Authority had sufficient material to reach a "subjective satisfaction" that the petitioner’s actions disturbed public order as opposed to mere "law and order"

The court observed that the detention was based on a single criminal case in which the petitioner had already been granted regular bail

Applying the Dhanya M. principle, the court reasoned that the mere registration of a prohibition case does not automatically equate to a disturbance of "public order"

The court found that the authority failed to demonstrate how the petitioner’s activities adversely affected the society at large or public tranquility.

Consequently, the court determined that the authority bypassed the ordinary criminal procedure (such as moving for cancellation of bail) and mechanically resorted to the extraordinary measure of preventive detention without adequate justification

The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was deemed illegal and invalid

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 23.01.2026, and directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case