Preventive detention is unsustainable when criminal cases fail to demonstrate any prejudice to the maintenance of public order.

The petitioner, Sultan @ Bala Hasan Shekh, was preventively detained by an order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat, under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act), labeling him a "dangerous person".

The detention was based on two criminal cases registered against him on 07.09.2025 at Limbayat Police Station involving sections 308(5), 118(1), 115(2), 296(b), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The detenu, through his brother, challenged the legality of this detention, arguing that the material did not demonstrate a disturbance to "public order" and that the order was passed mechanically.

Whether the activities of the detenu, based on the registered FIRs, were prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order" as defined under the PASA Act, 1985.

Whether the Detaining Authority correctly arrived at a subjective satisfaction to justify preventive detention instead of relying on ordinary criminal law, especially when the detenu had already been granted bail in the underlying offences.

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 offences.

It relied heavily on 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 and only when ordinary criminal law (such as cancellation of bail) is insufficient to address the threat.

The Court also referenced *Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana* regarding the circumvention of ordinary criminal procedure.

The Court observed that the Detaining Authority failed to establish a nexus between the detenu’s alleged criminal acts and a breach of "public order" as opposed to a mere "law and order" issue.

The Court reasoned that the two registered cases, for which the detenu had already been granted bail by competent courts, did not possess the requisite impact to disturb public tranquility or safety.

Citing the Supreme Court's stance in *Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar*, the Court emphasized that preventive detention should not be used merely to "clip the wings" of an accused when the State fails to challenge bail orders through ordinary legal channels.

Consequently, the subjective satisfaction of the authority was deemed flawed as it did not account for why ordinary penal laws were inadequate.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 20.11.2025, and directed that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Rule was made absolute.