JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under: “(A) Your Lordship please to be quash and set aside the detention order bearing No. PCB/ PASA/DTN/769/2023 dated 14.09.2023, Annexure-A to this petition and further be pleased to release the detenue forthwith, and (B) Your Lordship please to be pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honorable Court may further be pleased to release the detenue from detention, and (C) Your Lordship please to be grant any other relief or pass any other order, which the Honorable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 14-09-2023 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. 3. Essentially challenge is made to the order of detention dated 14.09.2023 by the Police Commissioner, Surat detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ by relying upon three FIR registered against the petitioner as IPC offences. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that offences on which, the Detaining Authority has relied upon are registered at the gap of one year each and therefore, there is no live-link between each of the offences to consider the petitioner to be continuously committing offences, cannot be treated to be habitual offender to attract definition of ‘Dangerous Person’. 3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged in each of the offences on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration lessor drastic remedy available for resorting to cancellation of bail before passing the order of detention. 3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has lastly submitted that even on merits, there is no sufficient evidence to consider the petitioner as having participated in the offences as in the first and third offence, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of confessional statement and in the second offence, only connecting the evidence, recovery of certain gas cylinders from the petitioner. It is submitted that this is not sufficient to treat the petitioner as habitual offender. 4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the petition on the ground that three offences registered against the petitioner falling within Chapter-XVI and XVII of the IPC and therefore, clearly attract definition of ‘Dangerous Person’ as contemplated under the PASA Act. 4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that the Detaining Authority has also relied upon statement of secret witnesses by invoking Section-9(2) of PASA Act and content of such statement would categorically indicate disturbance in Public Order. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the detention order of the petitioner is based on three offences as is evident from the grounds of detention dated 14-09-2023 by the Police Commissioner, Surat, details of which is given in tabular form, which is as under: Sr.No. Name of Police Station F.I.R. No. Section Date of arrest of accused and date of bail granted to the accused 1. Salabatpura Police Station C.R. No.11210055211411/2021 Section-380, 454, 457, 114 of I.P.C. Arrested on 18-09-2021/Bail granted on 13- 10-2021 2. Jahangirpura Police Station C.R. No.11210007220318/2022 Section-380, 114 of I.P.C. Arrested on 30-07-2022/Bail granted on 31- 07-2022 3. Kapodra Police Station C.R. No.11210022231546/2023 Section-380, 457, 114 of I.P.C. Arrested on 28-08- 2023/Bail granted on 12-09-2023 5.1 The Court has taken into consideration the fact that in between each of this offences, first offence was registered in the month of July, 2021, second was registered in July, 2022 and third was registered in the month of August, 2023. Therefore, there is gap of one year between each of the offences. Also as submitted by learned Advocate, there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner except for the confessional statement and therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner cannot be treated to be habitual offender as live-link between three offences is snapped. 5.2 The Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in AIR 2022 S.C. 4715 has observed as under: “11. 5.2 The Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in AIR 2022 S.C. 4715 has observed as under: “11. We are persuaded to allow this appeal on the following two grounds: (i) Delay in passing the order of detention from the date of proposal thereby snapping the "live and proximate link" between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention & failure on the part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner. (ii) The detaining authority remained oblivious of the fact that in both the criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority for the purpose of passing the order of detention, the appellant detenu was ordered to be released on bail by the special court. The detaining authority remained oblivious as this material and vital fact of the appellant detenu being released on bail in both the cases was suppressed or rather not brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority at the time of forwarding the proposal to pass the appropriate order of preventive detention. DELAY IN PASSING THE ORDER OF DETENTION 12. We may recapitulate the necessary facts which have a bearing so far as the issue of delay is concerned. The proposal to take steps to preventively detain the appellant at the end of the Superintendent of Police addressed to the Superintendent of Police (C/S) West Tripura, Agartala is dated 28th of June 2021. The proposal in turn forwarded by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Crime) on behalf of the Director General to the Secretary, Home Department is dated 14.07.2021. The order of detention is dated 12th of November, 2021. There is no explanation worth the name why it took almost five months for the detaining authority to pass the order of preventive detention. 13. There is indeed a plethora of authorities explaining the purpose and the avowed object of preventive detention in express and explicit language. We think that all those decisions of this Court on this aspect need not be recapitulated and recited. But it would suffice to refer to the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 403 , wherein the following observation is made: "Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. We think that all those decisions of this Court on this aspect need not be recapitulated and recited. But it would suffice to refer to the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 403 , wherein the following observation is made: "Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing." 14. In view of the above object of the preventive detention, it becomes very imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authorities to remain vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in passing the detention order at the earliest from the date of the proposal and executing the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing authority would defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings. 15. The adverse effect of delay in arresting a detenu has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and this Court has laid down the rule in clear terms that an unreasonable and unexplained delay in securing a detenu and detaining him vitiates the detention order. In the decisions we shall refer hereinafter, there was a delay in arresting the detenu after the date of passing of the order of detention. However, the same principles would apply even in the case of delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the proposal. The common underlying principle in both situations would be the "live & proximate link" between the grounds of detention & the avowed purpose of detention. xxxxx 20. However, the same principles would apply even in the case of delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the proposal. The common underlying principle in both situations would be the "live & proximate link" between the grounds of detention & the avowed purpose of detention. xxxxx 20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 21. In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of detention with greater promptitude. The "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More importantly the delay has not been explained in any manner & though this point of delay was specifically raised & argued before the High Court as evident from Para 14 of the impugned judgment yet the High Court has not recorded any finding on the same.” 5.3 The Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner in each of the offences was enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the year 2021 and 2022, yet the Sponsoring Authority has not objected to the grant of regular bail, while he was apprehended in the third offence. Over and above, there does not appear to be any application of mind to the fact that lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail was resorted to and there is no conclusion in the Detention Order that cancellation of bail may not be efficacious remedy to prevent the petitioner from indulging into so called anti-social activities. Over and above, there does not appear to be any application of mind to the fact that lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail was resorted to and there is no conclusion in the Detention Order that cancellation of bail may not be efficacious remedy to prevent the petitioner from indulging into so called anti-social activities. Only reference made to the bail by the Detaining Authority is that as the petitioner is on bail, he is likely to indulge in such offences. This in the opinion of the Court, does not have any justification to satisfy the subjective satisfaction. 5.4 In that view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 17 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. 5.5 Lastly, the Court has considered the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail in connection with last offence on 12-09-2023 and thereafter, it appears that Sponsoring Authority have recorded statement of secret witnesses on 13-09-2023, which came to be verified on 14-09-2023 by the Detaining Authority and date of order of detention is also 14-09-2023. 5.6 In the opinion of the Court, exercise is too mechanical, as the Detaining Authority would not have sufficient time to apply its mind to the grounds of order of detention and the documents annexed thereto by the Sponsoring Authority. 6. 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. 6. 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. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention No.PCB/PASA/DTN/769/2023 dated 14-09-2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.