Preventive detention lacks legal validity if alleged criminal activities do not adversely affect maintenance of public order.

The petitioner, Atul @ Bunty, was preventively detained by an order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat

He was classified as a "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA)

The detention order was based on two criminal cases registered against him at Dindoli Police Station under various sections of the IPC, BNS, and the GP Act between February 2024 and November 2025

The petitioner was already granted bail by a competent court in these underlying offences

He challenged the detention through a friend, Manohar Tukaram Patil, arguing that there was no material to prove a disturbance to "public order"

1. Whether the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority under the provisions of the PASA Act, 1985, is sustainable in law given the material on record

2. Whether the activities of the detenue, based on the registered FIRs, amounted to a disturbance of "public order" or merely affected "law and order"

The court 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 abets offences under specific chapters of the IPC or Arms Act

The court relied on the constitutional protection under Article 21 and the exception of preventive detention under Article 22(3)(b)

It heavily cited the precedent *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 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 prove how the petitioner’s activities adversely affected the maintenance of "public order" as opposed to simple "law and order"

The court observed that the authority reached a "subjective satisfaction" based on only two criminal cases, which was insufficient to conclude that the petitioner’s actions were prejudicial to public tranquility

Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court noted that when an accused is enlarged on bail by a competent court, the state should ideally move for cancellation of bail rather than resorting to the "hard law" of preventive detention

The court concluded that the detention order was passed mechanically without adequate application of mind to the distinction between "public order" and "ordinary criminal activities"

The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not legal or valid as the material on record did not justify the high threshold of preventive detention

The court directed the immediate release of the detenue, provided he is not required in any other case, and made the Rule absolute