Preventive detention solely based on individual criminal cases without impact on public order is unsustainable.

The petitioner, Sanjaybhai Rathod, was preventively detained following an order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Director General of Police, C.I.D. Crime and Railways, Gandhinagar

The detention was based on a single criminal case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, dated 15.05.2025

The authority classified the detenue as being involved in "Illicit Traffic" under Section 2(e) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, 1988, asserting his activities disturbed public order

The petitioner challenged the legality of this detention, arguing a lack of material to prove a disturbance to public tranquility or health

Whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the provisions of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, is legally sustainable based on the available material

Whether the activities of the detenue, based on a single criminal case, could be termed as acting in a manner "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order"

The court primarily applied Section 2(e) of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, which defines "illicit traffic"

It further relied on the principles established in *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and others* (AIR 2

no citation