JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order of detention dated 25.09.2023 passed by the detaining authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, as being illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary, suffers from total non-application of mind and violative of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.” 2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 25.09.2023 passed by the detaining authority, the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, detaining the petitioner as a “dangerous person.” 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that the offences relied upon by the detaining authority are not of such a nature which would result in breach of public order, as, in the first offence, it is submitted that nobody is named in the FIR and no recovery or discovery of any weapon is made from the petitioner nor any test identification parade was conducted to connect the petitioner with the offence and therefore, there is no evidence against the petitioner. Whereas, the second FIR relied upon by the detaining authority has arisen out of a private dispute, as in the FIR itself, it is narrated that on account of a previous altercation, the petitioner and other co-accused had committed an assault on the complainant therein. Therefore, there is no question of disturbance of public order. 4. Learned advocate has submitted that in each of the offence, the petitioner has been released on bail on the same day of his arrest and therefore, it becomes a relevant consideration that when the petitioner has been enlarged by the police station itself on the very same day of his arrest, there is no justification or subjective satisfaction for detention. 5. Learned advocate has lastly submitted that there is a delay in passing the order of detention as the petitioner was released on bail on 08.08.2023 and the order of detention is dated 25.09.2023. 6. 5. Learned advocate has lastly submitted that there is a delay in passing the order of detention as the petitioner was released on bail on 08.08.2023 and the order of detention is dated 25.09.2023. 6. As against this, learned AGP has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that the petitioner has been arraigned in quick succession in two offences which are falling under Chapters XVI and XVII of IPC and therefore, the petitioner is a habitual offender. Not only that the petitioner also has a history, where previously in the years 2016 and 2018, the petitioner was similarly detained and even after the previous detention, the petitioner has continued to indulge in IPC offences and hence, the detaining authority is justified in passing the order of detention. 7. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner makes a statement that the previous detention orders passed in the years 2016 and 2018 were challenged by the petitioner before this Court and this Court, by reasoned orders, have quashed and set aside these orders of detention and therefore, the detaining authority ought not to have relied upon the previous detention orders which were quashed, as the same would be irrelevant factor for passing the order of detention. 8. 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 the order of detention dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon two IPC offences registered against the petitioner with Sola High Court Police Station, the details of which, in tabular form, are as under: S. No. Police Station, C.R. No. and Date Sections Date of Arrest/Date of release on bail 1 Sola High Court Police Station, C.R. No. 11191045230496/2023, Dated 05.06.2023 Sections 324, 323, 294(b) and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act 07.06.2023/ 07.06.2023 2 Sola High Court Police Station C.R. No. 11191045230761/2023, Dated 06.08.2023 Sections 324, 323, 294(b), 435 and 114 of IPC and Section 135(1) of G.P. Act 08.08.2023/ 08.08.2023 9. The chronology of events would show that in connection with the first offence, the petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2023 and was forthwith released on bail on the same day. The chronology of events would show that in connection with the first offence, the petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2023 and was forthwith released on bail on the same day. Similarly, in the second offence registered on 06.08.2023, the petitioner was released on bail on the very same day of his arrest, i.e. on 08.08.2023. 10. In view of the aforesaid, where the sponsoring authority is the police station where the offences have been registered and when the very same police station has enlarged the petitioner on bail on the same day of his arrest, there does not appear to be any cause of action to treat the petitioner as a “dangerous person”, else the release on bail on the very day of arrest by the concerned police station, which happens to be the sponsoring authority, would not have taken place. 11. Subjective satisfaction would stand vitiated, as is held in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen vs. State of Telangana and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 908 of 2022 and 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.” 12. The Court has taken into consideration the fact of delay of 1½ months in passing the order of detention, as the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 08.08.2023, whereas the detention order is passed on 25.09.2023. The order of detention does not refer to any cause for delay nor any affidavit is filed to explain the delay. 13. 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. 14. Consequently, the impugned order of detention dated 25.09.2023 passed by the respondent-authority is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Consequently, the impugned order of detention dated 25.09.2023 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.