High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order, Finds Material Insufficient to Sustain "Dangerous Person" Label

A bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani heard a challenge to a preventive detention order dated 30.01.2026 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Surat under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, which declared the detenue a “dangerous person.” The petition was filed on behalf of Taj Mohammad @ Haider through his brother Lalbabu and contested the legality and validity of the detention order.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the material on record was not sufficient to sustain the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenue’s activities were “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” The Court noted that the order relied primarily on two criminal cases and observed that such offences did not necessarily bear on public order. The Court referred to Apex Court jurisprudence underscoring that preventive detention is “an extraordinary power” and must be used sparingly, and that the State should, where appropriate, seek cancellation of bail rather than resort to preventive detention. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered opinion that, the material on record are not sufficient for holding that the alleged activities of the detenue have either affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.” The court directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith if he was not required in any other case.

Background:
The detenue, Taj Mohammad @ Haider S/o Sehdi Shaikhabbasi, came to be detained by an order of the Commissioner of Police, Surat dated 30.01.2026 under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 as a “dangerous person.” The grounds of detention referred to two criminal cases registered at Bhestan Police Station for offences including Section 379 IPC and provisions noted as 303(2) and 54 of the BNS for the period 12.01.2024 to 07.01.2026. The order was executed and the detenue was detained in Central Jail, Ahmedabad.

The petitioner, through learned counsel, contended that the detaining authority had no material showing disturbance of public health, public order, or public tranquility and submitted that the order was passed without application of mind and mechanically. The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the detenue was a habitual offender and that his antecedents and past activities adversely affected society, justifying preventive detention to prevent acts prejudicial to public order.

The Court examined the impugned order, the definition of “dangerous person” in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985, and the material placed before the detaining authority. Relying on Supreme Court authority in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala and others, the High Court recalled that “the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly” and that “the State should move for cancellation of bail of the detenu, instead of placing him under the law of preventive detention.” Applying these principles, the Court found that the two cases relied upon did not demonstrate a likelihood of affecting public order and that ordinary criminal remedies, including application for cancellation of bail, were available to the State. Consequently, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was held to be legally unsustainable. The petition was allowed, the detention order dated 30.01.2026 was quashed and the detenue was directed to be released if not wanted in any other matter. Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1871 of 2026
Case Title: Taj Mohammad @ Haider S/o. Sehdi Shaikhabbasi thro Lalbabu S/o. Sehdi Shaikhabbasi Versus Commissioner of Police, Surat & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohddanish M. Barejia (Advocate)
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Monali H. Bhatt, Additional Public Prosecutor

Source:: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 45