JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under: “A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ Habeas Corpus or writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 03/10/2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Ann.: A to this petition) in PCB/PASA/DTN/828/2023 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner detenu from the detention forthwith;” 2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 03-10-2023 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. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 03.10.2023 by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ primarily on the ground of delay in passing the order of detention, as the offences relied upon by the Detaining Authority were registered on 25-08-2023 and 28-08-2023 and in connection with which, both the offecnes, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 02-09-2023, still the order of detention has been passed after period of one month. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that offence involved is that of mobile theft and therefore, does not have potential to disturb the public order. 3.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has lastly submitted that though the Sponsoring Authority is the same as that the Investigating Agency in both the offences, still they have not resorted to cancellation of bail after the petitioner was released on regular bail and therefore, has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors. reported in 2023 (9) SCC 633 . 4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the petition on the ground that the petitioner has been involved in similar kind of offence of mobile theft in the very area and such offences are falling under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, he is rightly treated to be ‘Dangerous Person’ required to be detained on account of his anti-social activities in the area within Commissionerate, Surat. 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 03-10-2023, 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. Chokbazar Police Station C.R. No.11210012231181 Section-379, 411 of I.P.C. Arrested on 31-08- 2023 / Bail granted on 02-09-2023 2. Chokbazar Police Station C.R. No.11210012231182 Section-379, 411 of I.P.C. Arrested on 31-08- 2023 / Bail granted on 02-09-2023 5.1 The chronology as is evident from the table herein above would indicate that the petitioner in connection with Chokbazar Police Station registered on 25-08-2023, was arrested on 31-08-2023, similarly, for offence, which was immediately registered on 28-08-2023, the petitioner was arrested on 31-08-2023. In both the offences, the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 02-09- 2023. 5.2 Thereafter, the Sponsoring Authority has recorded statement of secret witnesses on 02-10-2023 and verified by the Detaining Authority on 03-10-2023 and therefore, there is a gap of one month after the petitioner being released on regular bail to pass the order of detention on 03-10-2023. 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. (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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Accordingly, applying the same to the facts of the case, delay of one month will be fatal to the present order of detention as well. 5.4 The Court has taken into consideration the fact that Court of competent jurisdiction having enlarged the petitioner on regular bail, the Sponsoring Authority or the Detaining Authority ought to have resorted to lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail before passing the order of detention. 5.5 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.” 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/828/2023 dated 03-10-2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention No.PCB/PASA/DTN/828/2023 dated 03-10-2023 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.