Preventive detention is unsustainable when criminal activities impact only law and order, not public order.

The petitioner, classified as a "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA), challenged a detention order dated 01.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City

The detention was based on two criminal cases registered against the petitioner between August 2025 and January 2026 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Gujarat Police Act

The petitioner, having been granted bail in the underlying offences by a competent court, argued that the detention order was passed mechanically without evidence that his actions disturbed "public order"

Whether the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority under the PASA Act, 1985, is sustainable in law based on the provided material

Whether the activities of the petitioner qualified as being "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as opposed to mere "law and order" issues

The court applied Section 2(c) of the PASA Act, 1985, which defines a "dangerous person" as one who habitually commits specific chapters of offences under the IPC/BNS or Arms Act

It relied on the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and the exception for preventive detention under Article 22(3)(b)

Crucially, the court applied the precedent of Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which holds that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and should not circumvent ordinary criminal law when bail cancellation is an available remedy

The court examined the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and found it legally insufficient.

It reasoned that the registration of two criminal cases, where the petitioner had already been granted bail, did not automatically categorize his actions as a threat to "public order"

The bench emphasized that the State failed to demonstrate how these specific offences impacted the society at large rather than being simple departures from "law and order."

Following the Supreme Court’s observation in Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana, the court noted that the State should have moved for cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law instead of resorting to the "hard law" of preventive detention to "clip the wings" of the accused

Consequently, the subjective satisfaction of the authority was deemed invalid.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 01.02.2026, and directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith