JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed inter- alia for following relief: “(A) BE PLEASED to admit and allow this petition in the interest of justice. (B) BE PLEASED to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the detention order dtd 01.06.2023 at annexure A passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, vide PCB/PASA/DTN/435/2023, passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat i.e. the respondent No.2 heren and further be pleased to direct the respondent to release the petitioner from detention forthwith and set at free, in the interest of justice.” 2. Essentially the challenge is to the order of detention dated 01.06.2023 for which the petitioner has been detained as “dangerous person” on the basis of two offences registered against the petitioner in Surat City. 3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 01.06.2023 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. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the two offences in which the petitioner is arraigned as an accused cannot be stated to be offence which can constitute ground for detention particularly, where the first offence registered at Dindoli Police Station dated 16.08.2022, the offence pertains to theft of laptop and mobile of which, there is no recovery or discovery either the mobile or any cash amount from the petitioner in this regard. It is only on the basis of the statement of co-accused that the petitioner has been arraigned as accused in this offence. It is submitted that there is no identification also to connect the petitioner with this offence. 4.1 It is submitted that in so far as the second offence is concerned, the offence pertains to mobile theft, during the investigation of which two mobiles shown to be recovered from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was apprehended first in the FIR registered with Puna Police Station and thereafter though the petitioner has no connection with the offence with Dindoli Police Station, the petitioner has been arraigned without any offence. Learned advocate submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Sabeena Vs. It is submitted that the petitioner was apprehended first in the FIR registered with Puna Police Station and thereafter though the petitioner has no connection with the offence with Dindoli Police Station, the petitioner has been arraigned without any offence. Learned advocate submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Sabeena Vs. State of Telangana, reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 457, the offences of theft though registered against the petitioner cannot be treated to be of such nature which would disturb the public order and therefore the attention is drawn to Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment 4.2 Learned advocate also submitted that considering the time gap between the offence registered first at Dindoli Police Station and the second offence registered at Puna Police Station, there is no live link between the two offences and therefore the petitioner cannot be treated to be a habitual offender, which is the requirement of provisions before declaring the petitioner as a dangerous person. 4.3 Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of the offences under IPC by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order. 5. Learned AGP has objected to grant of the petition and submitted that the petitioner was first arrested in connection with the offence at Puna Police Station on 17.02.2023 and during the course of investigation, it has found that the petitioner was also involved in previously registered FIR at Dindoli Police Station, and accordingly, the petitioner was thereafter arrested in the offence registered at Dindoli Police Station. It is submitted that the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 30.05.2023 and therefore, immediately as detaining authority found that after being enlarged on bail the petitioner will indulge in similar offence has passed order of detention without any delay to prevent the anti -social activity of the petitioner. 5.1 With regards to missing live link between two offence, learned APP drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the secret witnesses, which were recorded on 01.06.2023 and were verified by the detaining authority and therefore what is stated in the statement of secret witnesses would clearly indicate the nature of act attributed to the applicant and period during which such act has been committed by the petitioner which clearly would establish the live link between the anti – social activities continue from the first offence till registration of the second offence. 5.2 Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2(c) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record. The petitioner is detained as “dangerous person” by the order of detention dated 01.06.2023 by the detaining authority i.e. Police Commissioner, Surat City. From the ground of detention it appears that that the detaining authority has relied upon two FIRs being C.R. No.11210056221964/2022 registered with Dindoli Police Station and second FIR being C.R. No. 11210046230161 of 2023 with the Puna Police Station, 6.1 From the aforesaid it appears that the incident took place on 16.08.2022, for which the offence registered on 17.08.2022, for which the petitioner came to be arrested on 21.02.2023 and was enlarged on bail by an order dated 11.04.2023. In connection with the second offence registered at Puna Police Station, the incident took place on 14.02.2023 for which the FIR was registered on 15.02.2023 and the petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2023 and thereafter the petitioner was granted bail on 23.03.2023. However, it appears that the petitioner was actually released on the bail in the aforesaid two offences on 30.05.2023. The order of detention dated 01.06.2023, the order of detention also refers to the statement of secret witnesses recorded by the sponsoring authority and verified by the detaining authority. The perusal of the statements would indicate that the secret witness had referred to incident which took place 8 months and 7 and 1/2 months respectively. This statement was recorded on 01.06.2023 and the same was verified on 01.06.2023 by the detaining authority, thereafter the order of detention was passed on the same day i.e. on 01.06.2023. The chronology of the incident clearly indicates that immediately after release of petitioner on 30.05.2023 on the very next day, the statement of the secret witnesses were recorded. Perusal of which would indicate that statements are monotonous in nature and recorded in mechanical manner and similarly verification is carried out in a mechanical manner. The chronology of the incident clearly indicates that immediately after release of petitioner on 30.05.2023 on the very next day, the statement of the secret witnesses were recorded. Perusal of which would indicate that statements are monotonous in nature and recorded in mechanical manner and similarly verification is carried out in a mechanical manner. The period between release on bail and detention order, the Court is of the view that there was no sufficient time for the detaining authority to apply mind to the entire record of the sponsoring authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction that the order of detention is the only option for curtailing the so called anti-social activities of the petitioner. 6.2 The Court has perused the order of detention along with the grounds, wherein it is indicated that the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction that the alternate of externment is not an adequate alternative to curtail the activities the similarly the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner having been released on bail would indulge in similar nature of activity. The Court is of the view that firstly the time gap between the first offence which was registered on 17.08.2022 and the second offence registered on 15.02.2023, as gap of almost six months, during which there does not appear any offence against the applicant of similar nature and therefore, live link between the two offences which are treated by the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction about the petitioner being “dangerous person” is non existence, as recorded earlier the statement of the secret witnesses having been recorded in mechanical manner would not fill up the gap for treating the activity of the petitioner to be continuous in nature thereby the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner is a habitual offender would stand vitiated. 6.3 Reliance placed by the petitioner in case of Syed Sabeena Vs. State of Telangana in Para -15 clearly by relying upon the previous decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar has indicated the nature of activity which would attract the definition of breach of public order. 6.3 Reliance placed by the petitioner in case of Syed Sabeena Vs. State of Telangana in Para -15 clearly by relying upon the previous decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar has indicated the nature of activity which would attract the definition of breach of public order. In the present case, the offences on which the detaining authority has relied upon appears to be individual in nature could not be treated as an activity which has affected even tempo of life thereby causing breach of public order in this connection, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1970 SC 852 ]. 6.4 The Court also taken into consideration the fact that the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the possibility of curtailing the anti social activity by resorting to the ordinary law and initiating the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in each of the two offences which is foundation for passing the detention order. 6.5 Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any baring on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations as have been levelled against the detenue cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenue within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act. Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act. Except general statements, there is no material on record which shows that the detenue is acting in such a manner, which is dangerous to the public order. Except general statements, there is no material on record which shows that the detenue is acting in such a manner, which is dangerous to the public order. In this connection, it will be fruitful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1970 SC 852 ], where the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' has been clearly laid down. The Court observed as follows : “Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof ? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.” 7. In recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors and Syed Sabeena v/s. State of Telangana and Ors. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4260 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.909 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4283 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 17 and 18 :- “17. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4260 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.909 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4283 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 17 and 18 :- “17. In any case, the State is not without a remedy, as in case the detenu is much a menace to the society as is being alleged, then the prosecution should seek for the cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal to the Higher Court. But definitely seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In view of above, we are inclined to allow this petition, because simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have recourse under the Act and no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act. 9. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 1.6.2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.