### Preventive detention is unsustainable when ordinary criminal law provides sufficient means to address public order apprehensions.

The petitioner, Bhikhabhai Zalabhai Bharwad, challenged a preventive detention order dated 13/02/2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Gandhinagar.

The order classified the petitioner as a "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA), based on three criminal cases registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, between May 2025 and January 2026.

The petitioner was detained in Palara Khas Jail, Bhuj-Kutch, despite having been granted bail by competent courts in all underlying criminal cases.

1. Whether the detention order passed under the Act of 1985 based on three pending criminal cases is sustainable in law when the petitioner had already been granted bail.

2. Whether the activities of the detenue affected "public order" as opposed to mere "law and order," justifying the invocation of preventive detention powers.

The court primarily applied Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, which defines a "dangerous person" as one who habitually commits or attempts to commit specified offenses under the IPC (now BNS) or Arms Act.

It relied on the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and Article 22(3)(b) regarding the curtailment of liberty.

Furthermore, the court applied the principles established by the Supreme Court in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which dictates that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure to be used sparingly and should not be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law or to circumvent bail orders.

The Court found that the Detaining Authority failed to establish a nexus between the petitioner's criminal antecedents and a genuine threat to "public order."

While the petitioner was involved in three cases under the BNS, the Court reasoned that these offenses did not affect the "maintenance of public order" but were rather issues of "law and order."

The Court highlighted that the state failed to seek cancellation of bail in the underlying criminal proceedings, opting instead for the "hard law" of preventive detention to "clip the wings" of the accused.

The judicial consensus cited emphasized that when a person is enlarged on bail, authorities must exercise extreme caution before passing a detention order on the same charges.

Thus, the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate was deemed legally flawed.

The Court held that the material on record was insufficient to prove that the petitioner’s activities adversely affected the maintenance of public order.

The Court directed the immediate release of the detenue from Palara Khas Jail, Bhuj-Kutch, provided he was not required in any other case.