JUDGMENT : K.R. Vyas, J. Petitioner Ahir Bhaya Ramde (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu"), by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order of detention dated 17-2-1995 passed by the District Magistrate, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the detaining authority") under section 3 (1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as " the PASA Act"). 2. In the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, the detaining authority has placed reliance on three cases, which are pending trial, registered against the detenu at C.R.No. 58/95, 40/93 and 61/94 for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Bombay Police Act. The detaining authority has also relied on the statements of four witnesses who have stated about the alleged anti-social activities carried on by the detenu. In view of this material placed before the detaining authority, a finding was recorded by the detaining authority that the detenu is a "dangerous person" within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the PASA Act and with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to pass the order of detention against him and, therefore, the impugned order is passed, which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Now, this petition is required to be allowed on the first contention and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised in the petition, which are also quite favourable to the detenu. Mr. Thakkar for the petitioner submitted that as can be seen from the three cases registered against the detenu, the first one is of 1992 and the last one is of 1994, which was registered on 11-2-1994. Exactly after one year from the registration of the last offence i.e. on 17-2-1995, the order of detention came to be passed. Hence, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in P.N. Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi AIR 1994 SC 656 , the impugned order is required to be set aside. 4. In the aforesaid decision, before the Supreme Court, the order of detention was passed after five months and eight days from the registration of the last case and the statements of the witnesses were obtained after the detenu was released on bail in all those cases. 4. In the aforesaid decision, before the Supreme Court, the order of detention was passed after five months and eight days from the registration of the last case and the statements of the witnesses were obtained after the detenu was released on bail in all those cases. Considering this, the Supreme Court set aside the order of detention which was passed after one year and six days from the registration of the last offence and, as stated by Mr. Thakkar, the detenu in the present case was also released on bail in all the three cases and the statements of the witnesses were obtained after the detenu was released on bail in all the three cases. In view of these facts, the decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the present case and the present petition is required to be allowed only on this sole ground. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 17-2-1995 is quashed and set aside. The detenu Ahir Bhaya Ramde is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required for any other purpose. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.