JUDGMENT : (A.Y. Kogje, J.) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under: “A. Quash and set aside the order of detention dated 23.09.2023 (Annexure-A), passed by the detaining authority under the provision of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 at post-execution stage as being illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary, suffers from total non-application of mind and violative of Art. 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India; B. Stay the further operation, and implementation of the detention order passed by the respondent no.2 and direct the respondents and/or their officers, agents, servants, persons etc. to release the petitioner from detention pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;” 2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 23-09-2023 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 23.09.2023 by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ by relying upon two FIR registered against the petitioner as IPC offences. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that incident in connection of which, FIR has been registered and the role played by the petitioner could not amount to disturbance in the public order, but may only be the case of the law and order, for which ordinary law is sufficient to take care of the situation rather than resorting to provision of detention law. 3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of appropriate jurisdiction and the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail available to the Sponsoring Authority and without it, the order of detention has been passed. 3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of appropriate jurisdiction and the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail available to the Sponsoring Authority and without it, the order of detention has been passed. 3.3 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that order of detention is also vitiated on the ground that material available on the record with the Detaining Authority is not sufficient to arrive at conclusion that the petitioner is Dangerous Person and habitual offender, particularly there is no statement of secret witness recorded to support the case of the Detaining Authority for anti-social activities. 4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the petition on the ground that the petitioner is accused in two offences, which are registered under Chapter-XVI and Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, proximity between two offences and both were registered in the month of August, 2023, was sufficient for the Detaining Authority to declare the petitioner as habitual offender and consequentially ‘Dangerous Person’. 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 two offences as is evident from the grounds of detention dated 23-09-2023, details of which is given in tabular form, which is as under: Sr. No. Name of Police Station F.I.R. No. and Date Section Date of arrest of accused and date of bail granted to the accused 1. Vadaj Police Station C.R. No.11191023230715/2023, Date: 23-08-2023 Section-457, 380 of I.P.C. Arrested on 31-08- 2023/Bail granted on 21-09-2023 2. Sola High Court Police Station C.R. No.11191045230796/2023, Date: 24-08-2023 Section-454, 457, 380 of I.P.C. Arrested on 26-08- 2023/Bail granted on 02-09-2023 5.1 Gist of the FIR relied upon by the Detaining Authority would indicate that the petitioner was allegedly indulging in committing theft by breaking open into shop/house. It appears that only connecting evidence to the petitioner is Recovery Panchnama, wherein articles like laptop, gas cylinder etc. were shown to have been recovered from the petitioner. It appears that only connecting evidence to the petitioner is Recovery Panchnama, wherein articles like laptop, gas cylinder etc. were shown to have been recovered from the petitioner. 5.2 The Court has taken into consideration the fact that in connection with offences registered at Vadaj Police Station on 23-08-2023, the petitioner was arrested on 31-08-2023 and enlarged on bail on 21-09- 2023, whereas in the offence registered at Sola High Court Police Station, which was registered on 24-08-2023, the petitioner was arrested on 26- 08-2023 and enlarged on bail on 02-09-2023. It is apparent from the record that the Detaining Authority has not resorted to any other remedy like cancellation of bail and neither there is any recording of satisfaction by the Detaining Authority that procedure for cancellation of bail was not effective for curtailing activities of the petitioner. In absence of any categoric finding in this record, subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would stand vitiated. 5.3 In that view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors. reported in 2023 (9) SCC 633 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 19 as under:- “19. 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.” 5.4 The Court has taken into consideration the aspect of theft committed by the petitioner, which are two sporadic incidents, which were registered at quick succession and in the opinion of the Court, law meant for such acts is sufficient to take care and prevent the petitioner from indulging into alleged anti-social activities and therefore, in absence of any statement of secret witnesses, there does not appear to be any credible material to indicate that the act of the petitioner has lead to breach of even tempo of life resulting in public disorder. 6. 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/DTN/PASA/524/2023 dated 23-09-2023 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.