Preventive detention cannot be sustained on a single criminal case without evidence of prejudice to public order.

The Petitioner, Bhimsing @ Jitu Fatesing Ravat, was preventively detained as a "bootlegger" under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act)

The detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City, on February 7, 2026, and the Petitioner was subsequently held at Central Jail, Rajkot

The detention was based on a single FIR registered on December 4, 2025, at Chhani police station involving various sections of the Prohibition Act and the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023

The Petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the material was insufficient to prove a disturbance to "public order"

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

Whether the activities of the detenue, premised on a single criminal case, constitute a threat to the maintenance of "public order" as defined under Section 3 of the Act of 1985

The Court applied Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, which defines a "bootlegger"

and Section 3, regarding the maintenance of public order

It relied on the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and Article 22(3)(b)

Procedurally and substantively, the Court followed Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which holds that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and only in rare cases where ordinary criminal law is insufficient

The Court also highlighted the principle from Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar that the law must be strictly construed and not used merely to circumvent bail in ordinary criminal prosecutions

The Court analyzed whether the single case cited against the Petitioner had a direct bearing on "public order" or merely related to "law and order" issues.

The Court observed that the Detaining Authority failed to demonstrate how the Petitioner's activities adversely affected public health, tranquility, or the maintenance of public order

Following the Supreme Court's guidance in Dhanya M. and Ameena Begum, the Court reasoned that since the State did not attempt to cancel the Petitioner's bail in the underlying criminal cases, jumping to the extraordinary measure of preventive detention was improper

The Court concluded that the authority’s "subjective satisfaction" was wrongly reached, as the offences cited did not fall within the rare exceptions required to justify the curtailment of personal liberty under the PASA Act

The Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated February 7, 2026, and directed that the Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case