Preventive detention is unsustainable where criminal activities do not adversely affect maintenance of public order.

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, was detained by an order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA).

The detention was based on the petitioner's involvement in a single criminal case registered on 12.08.2025 under Sections 65(E), 98(2), and 81 of the Prohibition Act.

The detaining authority classified the petitioner as a "bootlegger" whose activities prejudicially affected the maintenance of "public order".

It is noted that the petitioner had already been granted regular bail by the competent court for the underlying prohibition offence.

1. Whether the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority under the PASA Act, 1985, is sustainable in law based on the materials available.

2. Whether the activities of the petitioner, involving a single case under the Prohibition Act, satisfy the threshold of disturbing "public order" as opposed to mere "law and order".

The Court primarily applied Section 3 of the Gujarat PASA Act, 1985, which empowers detention to prevent activities prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order," and Section 2(b), which defines a "bootlegger".

It relied on the constitutional safeguards under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court heavily cited the precedent of *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and others* (AIR 2025 SC 2868), establishing that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and only in rare cases, and that the State should seek cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law rather than resorting to preventive detention.

The Court examined whether the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction was legally sound.

It observed that the petitioner’s detention was based on a single case where he had already been granted bail.

The Court reasoned that for an order under PASA to be valid, the activities must pose a threat to "public order" (affecting the community at large) rather than just "law and order".

Relying on Apex Court guidelines, the Court noted that if an individual is released on bail, the proper remedy for the State is to move for the cancellation of that bail if they fear further offences, rather than circumventing ordinary criminal procedure via preventive detention.

The Court concluded that the specific prohibition offence cited did not have a sufficient bearing on the maintenance of public order to justify the curtailment of personal liberty.

Consequently, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was deemed illegal and invalid.

The Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 10.02.2026, and directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.