JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief; “(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting the detention order dated 02.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 (Ann.A to this petition) in PCB/PASA/DTN/825/2023 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner detenue from the detention forthwith.” 2. The petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” for the one offence registered with Pandesara Police Station under sections 354(A)(1)(i)(iii) of I.P.C. and sections 8, 9(m), 10, 11(3) and 12 of the POCSO Act. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that this is a solitary offence and in connection with this offence, the Court of appropriate jurisdiction has enlarged the petitioner on bail and therefore, the detaining authority ought to have taken into consideration a lesser drastic remedy available by resorting to cancellation of bail. 4. Learned advocate also submitted that the petitioner is already facing a prosecution of serious offence. However, he cannot be treated to be a habitual offender as this is the only offence against the petitioner and therefore, the order of detention as a “sexual offender” is not justified. It is submitted that this particular offence has not led to the situation, wherein it can be said that public order has been disturbed. 5. It is also argued that certain documents which are given to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention are illegible and therefore, the petitioner was not able to make a representation, thereby, violating his Fundamental Right. 6. As against this, learned AGP has opposed the grant of the application by submitting that as the petitioner has committed offence of a serious nature falling under the definition of sexual offender defined under section 2(HA) of the Act, the detaining authority was justified in passing the order of detention. 7. It is submitted that the requirement of disturbance in public order cannot be there in case where a detenue has been detained as a sexual offender and only in cases where the offence under the sections provided for in the definition of sexual offender are made out, the detaining authority can pass an order of detention. 8. 7. It is submitted that the requirement of disturbance in public order cannot be there in case where a detenue has been detained as a sexual offender and only in cases where the offence under the sections provided for in the definition of sexual offender are made out, the detaining authority can pass an order of detention. 8. Learned AGP has thereafter taken this Court to the contents of the FIR to indicate the seriousness of offence. 9. 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 02.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, City: Surat. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon one IPC offence registered against the petitioner with Pandesara Police Station, the details of which, in tabular form, are as under; Sr No Police Station, FIR No. & Date Section/s Date of Arrest/Date of release on bail 1 Pandesara Police Station FIR A-Part No.11210045233813, Date: 20.08.2023 Section 354(A)(1)(i)(iii) of IPC and sections 8, 9(m), 10, 11(3) and 12 of the POCSO Act. 27.08.2023/29.09.2023 10. The Court finds that along with the grounds of detention, from page-85 onward, is the application of regular bail filed by the petitioner and the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the District & Sessions Court, Surat wherein, the petitioner has been enlarged on conditional bail. It is evident that after the petitioner was enlarged on bail under order dated 29.09.2023, the petitioner was immediately detained on 02.10.2023. 11. In the opinion of the Court, to prevent the activity of the petitioner, the detaining authority/sponsoring authority had an option to resorting to cancellation of bail, as has been provided by the Apex Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana and Ors. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2022 (@ 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. 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 submission of the learned advocate regarding illegible copies been supplied along with the grounds of detention. 13. The Court has perused the documents supplied along with the grounds of detention and it appears that pages 19, 69, 77, 79, 81 and 83 are the documents which are hardly legible and therefore, non-supply of legible documents, on which the detaining authority has placed reliance upon to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, has deprived the petitioner from making a representation, which is a valuable right available to the petitioner under the Constitution of India. 14. 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. 15. Consequently, the impugned order of detention dated 02.10.2023 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.