JUDGMENT : (A.Y. Kogje, J.) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed inter-alia for the following reliefs : “(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 (Ann.A to this petition) in PCB/PASA/DTN/744/2023 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner detenue from the detention forthwith; 2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 04.09.2023 passed by the detaining authority, the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, detaining the petitioner as a “dangerous person”. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the grounds of detention would indicate that the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” on the basis of two IPC offences registered against him with Pandesara Police Station. Learned advocate submitted that though two offences have been registered against the petitioner, yet, the offences are in the nature of private disputes, where, in the first offence, the petitioner was enlarged on bail at the Police Station itself. Insofar as the second offence is concerned, it has reference to a previous altercation because of which the incident took place and that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail in such offence. Learned advocate submitted that even the application of mind to arrive at a subjective satisfaction has been vitiated in view of the fact that the detaining authority has relied upon statements of secret witnesses wherein the verification of the secret witnesses was undertaken by the detaining authority on 04.09.2023 and on the same day, the order of detention was passed and executed. Therefore, the detaining authority did not have sufficient time to go through the material placed on record by the sponsoring authority and arrive at a definite conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were causing disturbance to “public order”. Learned advocate further submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, the lesser drastic remedy of resorting to cancellation of bail was available but, in spite of that the order of detention was passed. 4. Learned advocate further submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, the lesser drastic remedy of resorting to cancellation of bail was available but, in spite of that the order of detention was passed. 4. Learned AGP has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that against the petitioner, two offences came to be registered, which are covered under the Chapters mentioned in the definition clause of “dangerous person”, as contemplated under the PASA Act and therefore, the moment the petitioner is arraigned as an accused, the order of detention would stand justified. Learned AGP submitted that on previous two occasions, the petitioner was detained under the PASA Act. It was submitted that after recording subjective satisfaction with regard to lesser drastic remedy not being sufficient to curtail the anti-social activities of the petitioner, the detention order came to be passed. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” by impugned order of detention dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon two IPC offences registered against the petitioner, the details of which, in tabular form, are as under : Sr No Police Station, C.R. No. and Section/s Date of offence, Time Date of arrest of accused, Time Date of release of accused on bail 1 Pandesara Police Station C.R. No. 11210045233832, Sections 323, 504 and 114 of IPC and section 135 of G.P. Act. Date: 27.08.23, Time: 18/30 hrs. Date: 28.08.23, Time: 22/45 hrs. 28.08.23 2 Pandesara Police Station C.R. No. 11210045233845, Sections 325, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and section 135 of G.P. Act. Date: 24.08.23, Time: 22/30 hrs. Date: 28.08.23, Time: 22/30 hrs. 31.08.23 6. The chronology of events, as indicated in the aforesaid table, would show that the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail in both the offences on 28.08.2023 and 31.08.2023 respectively. Therefore, the option of resorting to lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail was available to the detaining authority, which, in the case of the petitioner, has not been utilized. The chronology of events, as indicated in the aforesaid table, would show that the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail in both the offences on 28.08.2023 and 31.08.2023 respectively. Therefore, the option of resorting to lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail was available to the detaining authority, which, in the case of the petitioner, has not been utilized. The order of detention does not indicate application of mind to the fact that the detaining authority did consider the lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail before passing the impugned order of detention, but has held that as the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail in the connected offences, he would once again indulge in such activities. Thus, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority would stand vitiated. 7. Subjective satisfaction would stand vitiated, as is held by the Apex Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4260 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, wherein, in paragraph-17, it has been observed as under:- “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. The Court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 31.08.2023 and thereafter, was detained on 04.09.2023; however, the detaining authority has relied upon statements of secret witnesses to support the subjective satisfaction about anti-social activities of the petitioner leading to disturbance to public order. However, such statements of secret witnesses dated 03.09.2023 were verified by the Commissioner of Police on 04.09.2023 and it appears that, on the same day, the petitioner was detained by the impugned order of detention. In the opinion of the Court, the verification, having been conducted on 04.09.2023, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to apply its mind to all the materials placed before it by the sponsoring authority before arriving at the subjective satisfaction. In the opinion of the Court, the verification, having been conducted on 04.09.2023, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to apply its mind to all the materials placed before it by the sponsoring authority before arriving at the subjective satisfaction. Recording of the statements on 03.09.2023 and its verification on 04.09.2023 appears to be an empty formality conducted by the detaining authority and therefore, though the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction on the basis of such material, the same would stand vitiated. 9. In this connection, it would be fruitful to refer to a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalidas Chandubhai Kahar v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1659 wherein, in paragraph-6, it has been observed as under; “6. His second contention is that the detaining authority has wrongly exercised the powers under Sec. 9(2) of PASA Act and by such wrong exercise of powers the detenue’s right to make a representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution has been infringed. He further elaborates his submission by pointing out that the statements of the witnesses have been recorded on 16th October, 1992 and that the said statements have been verified by the Superintendent of Police, C-Division, Baroda City on 16th October, 1992. It has been pointed out by the learned A.G.P. Mr. Y. M. Thakkar that the proposal in the case was made on 16th October, 1992 and the order of detention was passed on 17th October, 1992. It is rather curious that the entire bunch of material was supplied by the sponsoring authority at the time of making the proposal and that has been promptly accepted by the detaining authority and passed the order on the next day itself. At the time of exercising the privilege under Sec. 9(2) of PASA, a balance is required to be struck between the public interest on the one hand and the right of the detenue to make a representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. If the statements of the witnesses are to be relied on, they must be genuine statements of the real persons. The detenue would like to verify as to whether these persons are fictitious persons or not and/or whether their statements are bogus statements or not? If the statements of the witnesses are to be relied on, they must be genuine statements of the real persons. The detenue would like to verify as to whether these persons are fictitious persons or not and/or whether their statements are bogus statements or not? Unless the detenue knows the names and addresses of the persons who have given the statements, he cannot verify the aforesaid facts and if the names and addresses along with the contents of the statements are supplied to the detenue, he can have full opportunity to verify the position and make an effective representation on that basis. As against this, there is a provision under Sec. 9(2) carved out on the basis of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution which provides that nothing in sub-sec. (1) shall require the authority making such order to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. Therefore, it is the duty of the detaining authority to strike a balance as stated above, that in the public interest, the names and addresses of the witnesses could not be disclosed. This should not be treated as an idle formality as it affects the public interest on the one hand and the right of the detenue on the other. When that is so, the detaining authority is expected to do some exercise before actually exercising the privilege under Sec. 9(2) of PASA. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear, as stated hereinbefore, that the verified statements were also placed before the detaining authority and there was no sufficient time for the detaining authority to examine the possibility of exercising the power under Sec. 9(2), as the proposal was made on 16th October, 1992 and the order of detention was passed on the following day, i.e., 17th October, 1992, nor is there any material to show as to how he examined the necessity of exercising the power under Sec. 9(2). Under the circumstances, in our view, it is a wrong exercise of power under Sec. 9(2) which has affected the detenue’s right of making an effective representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the continued detention of the detenue is bad and illegal and the impugned detention order is required to be quashed and set aside.” 10. In view of above, we are inclined to allow this petition and accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 04.09.2023 passed by the respondent-authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.