JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under: “A. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this Petition. B. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the detention order being PCB/PASA/DTN/829 of 2023 dated 03.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 herein and executed on 03.10.2023 which is at Annexure-‘A’ by way of issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the interest of justice. C. Pending admission and/or final disposal of this petition this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 herein. D. That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to dispense with the affidavit as the petitioner is in jail and in turn this Hon'ble court be pleased to accept the affidavit filed by the wife of - the petitioner.” 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. Essentially challenge is made to the order of detention dated 03.10.2023 by the Police Commissioner, Surat City detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ by relying upon two FIR registered against the petitioner as IPC offences are of such nature, which cannot be said to be offence disturbing the public order, but are arising out of private disputes between the complainant and the petitioner. 3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to the contents of two FIR, which are part of the documents along with grounds of detention. Learned Advocate has also challenged the order of detention on the ground that the petitioner was enlarged by the Court of competent jurisdiction, still the the Sponsoring Authority or the Detaining Authority have not resorted to cancellation of bail. 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 two offences, which 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. 5. 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 two offences, which 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. 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. Lalgate Police Station C.R. No.11210061230190 Section-323, 337, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C., Section135(1) of G.P. Act Arrested on 02-05- 2023/Bail granted on 03-05-2023 2. Lalgate Police Station C.R. No.11210061230502 Section-323, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C., Section-135 of G.P. Act Arrested on 02-10- 2023/Bail granted on 02-10-2023 5.1 The Court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in connection with the first offence on 03-05-2023 and thereafter, in the second offence, released on 02-10-2023. Perusal of the grounds of detention and the documents annexed therein would indicate that statement of secret witnesses were recorded on 02-10-2023 by the Sponsoring Authority and were verified by the Detaining Authority on 03-10-2023 and therefore, the Detaining Authority does not appear to have got sufficient time to apply its mind to documents, which are part of the grounds of detention and arrived at subjective satisfaction. Therefore, exercise appears to have been undertaken mechanically, where the order of detention has been passed on the very next day of the petitioner being enlarged on regular bail and that to after recording statement of secret witnesses on the very same day and verification on the next day. 5.2 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. 5.2 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.” 5.3 The facts of the case would indicate that though the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail, the Detaining Authority or the Sponsoring Authority, which is the same in both the offences has not resorted to cancellation of bail and therefore, subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority while observing that as the petitioner is on regular bail, will continue to commit similar offences, would stand vitiated. 5.4 Lastly, the Court has taken into consideration the submission made by the learned Advocate on the ground that alleged offence would not amount to breach of even tempo of life and therefore, breach of public order. Perusal of the contents of the FIR would indicate that the petitioner had entered into scuffle on account of the private dispute with known persons within the vicinity of his area and therefore, would not amount to disturbing of public order, but would actually amount to issue of law and order. 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/829/2023 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.