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

The applicant, Sahil @ Damar Kaluji Mohanji Thakor, was preventively detained by an order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad

He was classified 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 against him under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) between January 2025 and January 2026

In all three cases, the detenue had already been granted bail by the concerned courts

The petitioner, through his brother, challenged the legality of the detention, arguing that there was no material to show a disturbance of "public order" and that the order was passed mechanically without application of mind

Whether the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law, specifically regarding the subjective satisfaction of a threat to "public order."

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 offences under specific chapters of the IPC/BNS or Arms Act

It further relied on the constitutional principles of Article 21 and Article 22(3)(b) as interpreted in *Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu*, establishing that preventive detention is an exceptional power to be used sparingly

Additionally, the court cited *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala* (AIR 2025 SC 2868) and *Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana*, which hold that preventive detention should not be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law or to circumvent bail orders when the State could instead move for cancellation of bail

The Court examined whether the three registered cases justified the "subjective satisfaction" that the detenue’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order" as opposed to mere "law and order" issues.

The Court reasoned that the mere registration of three cases, where the detenue had already been granted bail, did not provide sufficient material to demonstrate a localized or systemic disturbance of public tranquility

Following the Supreme Court's mandate in *Dhanya M.*, the Court observed that the law of preventive detention is a "hard law" that must be strictly construed; it cannot be used merely to "clip the wings" of an accused involved in criminal prosecution when ordinary penal laws suffice

The Court found that the Detaining Authority failed to explain how the specific offences affected the society at large to a degree necessitating detention, rendering the satisfaction legally invalid

Consequently, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was deemed illegal and invalid.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 04.02.2026, and directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case