Preventive Detention under PASA invalid if based on ordinary crimes not prejudicial to public order.

The petitioner, Samir Ansari, was preventively detained following an order dated 08.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City

The authority classified him as a "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA), based on two criminal cases registered at Sachin Police Station on 27.11.2025 involving various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The petitioner had already been granted bail by a competent court in those two cases

The petitioner challenged the detention through his brother, arguing that the offences cited did not affect public order and that the order was passed mechanically

Whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law when based on individual criminal cases where bail was granted.

Whether the activities of the detenue could be legally classified as "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" under section 2(c) of the PASA Act.

The court primarily interpreted Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, which defines a "dangerous person" as one who habitually commits specific offences under the IPC (now BNS) or Arms Act

It relied on the constitutional principle enshrined in Article 22(3)(b) regarding preventive detention, viewed through the lens of *Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu*, which mandates that detention is an exception to Article 21 and must be used only in rare cases

Furthermore, the court applied the precedent of *Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala* (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which establishes that the State should seek cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law rather than resorting to the "hard law" of preventive detention unless public order is genuinely threatened

The Court examined whether the two registered cases justified the "subjective satisfaction" that the petitioner's activities disturbed public order, as opposed to mere law and order

The Court reasoned that the mere registration of two BNS cases—for which the petitioner had already secured bail—did not demonstrate a nexus to the disturbance of public tranquility or the maintenance of public order

Citing *Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana*, the Court noted that the State failed to move for cancellation of bail in the ordinary course, and instead resorted to the extraordinary measure of PASA to "clip the wings" of the accused

Consequently, the Court found that the Detaining Authority acted mechanically and without sufficient material to conclude that the petitioner's actions adversely affected the society at large

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order dated 08.02.2026

It directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case, and made the Rule absolute