JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties through video-conference. 2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 07.04.2020 passed by the respondent – detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the petitioner – detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that only two offences are registered against the petitioner. In the detention order though it has been mentioned two different occasions when the alleged act is committed but no offence is registered. It does not have any bearing in the order. The detaining authority has to satisfy that the alleged anti social activity of the detenue affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of the public order. 4. While the learned AGP appearing for the State has drawn my attention towards detention order, wherein it is stated that in the report itself it is stated that after registration of alleged offences the present petitioner had given threat to one of the witnesses who is a shop-keeper and demanded Rs.1,000/- towards ransom money. It is also stated in the report that the petitioner has travelled in auto-rickshaw and refused to pay the auto fair. He had torn the hood of the auto-rickshaw and the auto driver was beaten. He had pointed knife to the witness and he was threatened that he would be killed. The learned AGP has contended that both the offences are committed in public place and due to his conduct crowd had gathered and public peace was disturbed. 5. The contention is raised about non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the extent that registration of only two offences and that too the petitioner is bailed out, cannot result into breach of public order and case of breach of law and order can be dealt with by taking recourse to ordinary course of law. 6. The contention is raised about non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the extent that registration of only two offences and that too the petitioner is bailed out, cannot result into breach of public order and case of breach of law and order can be dealt with by taking recourse to ordinary course of law. 6. Thus, from the order of the detention, it reveals that the petitioner has used lethal weapon by administering threat to the complainant and witnesses at public place and in view of detaining authority it has resulted not only into breach of law and order but also public order and, therefore, detaining authority by applying its mind arrived at subjective satisfaction, cannot be said to have been vitiated. Further, the detention of a person is not to punish him but to prevent him from doing so in future. The basis of detention is the substantial of the execution of the reasonable probability to a likelyhood of a detenue acting in a similar manner by his act and preventing him by detaining from doing the same. The power of preventive detention is precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to offence. It is not parallel proceedings. There is a very thin line between question of law and order situation and a public order situation and some time, the acts of a person relating to law and order situation turn into the situation of a public order situation. The conduct of collecting ransom amount and not paying fair to the auto-rickshaw driver clearly shows the activity of the person likely to disturb the public order and peace. If such person moves freely in society, no one can live with peace. 7. Under the circumstance, I am of the view that the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is based on the actual facts and does not require any interference. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the present petition requires to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed and the order of detention dated 07.04.2020 passed by the respondent – detaining authority is hereby confirmed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Petition dismissed.