Preventive Detention Quashed as Material Found Insufficient to Affect Public Order

A bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice D. M. Vyas heard a challenge to a preventive detention order passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, which had declared the detenue a “dangerous person” under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The petition, filed through the detenue’s wife, assailed the legality and validity of the detention order dated 09/01/2026.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order. The court held that the material on record did not support the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction that the detenue’s activities were “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” The judges observed that preventive detention is an “extraordinary power” and must be used sparingly, referring to recent Supreme Court guidance. 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 incorporated earlier Supreme Court observations that “the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly,” and that where ordinary criminal law remedies existed, the State should have sought cancellation of bail instead of resorting to preventive detention.

Background

The detenue, Vijaybhai @ Kalu S/o Bachubhai Solanki, was detained under the 1985 Act by a detention order dated 09/01/2026. The grounds recorded by the detaining authority referred to two criminal cases registered at Rander Police Station for offences noted between 23/05/2025 and 24/05/2025; the detenue had been granted bail in those proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no material demonstrating disturbance of public health, public peace or public tranquillity, and submitted that the detention order was passed without application of mind and in a mechanical manner. The State contended that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities affected society at large and that the detention was preventive to maintain public order.

The High Court examined the statutory definition of “dangerous person” under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985 and analysed the impugned grounds against settled principles governing preventive detention. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala, the Court emphasised that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and that ordinarily the State should seek cancellation of bail where criminal proceedings exist. The bench concluded that the two referred cases did not demonstrate an adverse effect on public order sufficient to sustain preventive detention and that the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction was not supported by material.

The Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 09/01/2026 and directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case Details: Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 900 of 2026 Case Title: VIJAYBHAI @ KALU S/O. BACHUBHAI SOLANKI THRO CHUSASAMA BALUBEN W/O VIJAYBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 For the Respondent(s): MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1