Case Note & Summary
The case involved a challenge to a preventive detention order passed under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The detenu, Ankush Dinesh Shukla, was detained by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, on 05.02.2026, branding him a 'dangerous person' under Section 2(c) of the Act. The detention was based on two criminal cases registered against the detenu at Pandesara Police Station between 19.01.2026 and 25.01.2026, both for offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The detenu had been granted bail in these cases. Aggrieved, the detenu, through his friend, filed a Special Criminal Application before the Gujarat High Court seeking to quash the detention order on the ground that there was no material to show that his activities adversely affected public order. The petitioner contended that the order was passed mechanically and without application of mind, as no evidence demonstrated a threat to public health, public order, or public tranquility. The State, on the other hand, argued that the detenu was a habitual offender whose activities impacted society at large, and the detention was necessary to prevent prejudicial acts in Surat. The High Court examined the core issue of the legality of the detention order. Perusing the grounds of detention, the court noted that only two recent cases were cited, and the detenu had been released on bail. The court reproduced the definition of 'dangerous person' under Section 2(c) of the Act, which requires habitual commission of certain offences over a period of three successive years. The court found that the material on record was insufficient to conclude that the detenu's activities had either affected or were likely to affect the maintenance of public order. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868), the court reiterated that preventive detention is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only when ordinary criminal law remedies, such as moving for cancellation of bail, are inadequate. The Supreme Court in Dhanya M. had observed that preventive detention must not be used merely to clip the wings of an accused involved in criminal prosecution, and when bail has been granted, the State should first exhaust the remedy of cancellation of bail. Applying these principles, the Gujarat High Court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not legal, valid, or in accordance with law. Consequently, the petition was allowed. The detention order dated 05.02.2026 was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith, provided he was not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Definition of Dangerous Person - Section 2(c) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - The definition requires habitual commission of specified offences over a continuous period of three years; two recent cases registered under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita may not suffice - Held that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction based on only two cases was flawed (Paras 7-8). B) Preventive Detention - Requirement of Material for Subjective Satisfaction - Public Order Disturbance - Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - To sustain a detention order, there must be material on record to show actual or likely adverse effect on maintenance of public order; mere registration of offences does not ipso facto establish such effect - Held that the detaining authority's conclusion that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to public order was not supported by sufficient material (Paras 9-10). C) Preventive Detention - Extraordinary Remedy - Exhaustion of Ordinary Criminal Law Remedies - Constitution of India, Article 21 and Article 22(3)(b) - Preventive detention is an exceptional measure curbing personal liberty and must be used sparingly; when an accused has been released on bail, the State should ordinarily move for cancellation of bail rather than resort to preventive detention - Reliance placed on Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2025 SC 2868, and the principle that preventive detention cannot be used to bypass ordinary criminal procedure (Paras 9-10). D) Preventive Detention - Quashing of Detention Order - Final Relief - Detention order dated 05.02.2026 passed by Commissioner of Police, Surat City, was quashed; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case (Paras 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order passed under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, based on two criminal cases and without material indicating disturbance to public order, is sustainable in law?
Final Decision
The petition was allowed. The detention order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, was quashed. The detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule was made absolute.
Law Points
- preventive detention is an extraordinary measure to be used sparingly
- subjective satisfaction must be based on material indicating adverse effect on public order
- mere registration of criminal cases does not satisfy requirement of threat to public order
- definition of 'dangerous person' under Section 2(c) of Gujarat PASA requires habitual commission of offences over three successive years
- ordinary criminal law remedies like cancellation of bail should be exhausted before resorting to preventive detention
