High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order, Holds Material Insufficient to Show Threat to Public Order

A bench of Justices N.S. Sanjay Gowda and D.M. Vyas heard a challenge to a preventive detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, which detained Aasif @ Ekka as a “dangerous person.” The petition was filed by the detenue’s mother, Shaikh Hamidabi, seeking quashing of the detention dated 11.01.2026.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction was not supported by sufficient material showing that the detenue’s activities had affected, or were likely to affect, the maintenance of public order. The Court noted that the detention rested on two criminal cases in which bail had been granted and that ordinary criminal remedies ought to have been pursued. 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 judgment also quoted the Apex Court’s recognition 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, which is not the appropriate remedy.”

Background
The detenue Aasif @ Ekka was detained by order dated 11.01.2026 under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 on the ground that he was a “dangerous person” whose activities prejudiced public order. The detention order referred to two criminal cases registered between 05.07.2025 and 05.10.2025, including offences under various provisions of the IPC, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Gujarat Police Act. The petition contended that no material showed disturbance to public health, public order or public tranquility, that the order was passed without application of mind and was executed while the detenue was in Central Jail, Ahmedabad.

The State relied on the detenue’s antecedents and described him as a habitual offender whose activities affected society at large. The High Court examined the definition of “dangerous person” under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985 and considered recent Supreme Court authority cited in the impugned order, including Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (AIR 2025 SC 2868), which stressed that preventive detention was an “extraordinary” and “hard” law to be used sparingly and that cancellation of bail was the appropriate route where criminal proceedings and bail orders existed. Applying those principles, the Court found that reliance on two cases in which bail had been granted did not suffice to establish the requisite nexus with public order. The petition was allowed, the detention order dated 11.01.2026 was quashed, and the detenue was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/SCR.A/997/2026
Case Title: AASIF@EKKA S/O. GYAS @ GAYAS SHAIKH THRO SHAIKH HAMIDABI W/O GYASS SHEIKH Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SURAT & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohddanish M Barejia (Advocate for Applicant No. 1)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yuvraj Bhrambhatt, Additional Public Prosecutor