Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned advocate for the detenue submitted that the impugned order of detention of the detenue requires to be quashed and set aside because the detaining authority has passed order of detention solely on the ground of registration of two FIRs, first for the offences under Sections 307, 504, 120B of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 25(1)(A), 27 of the Arms Act and another for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act, Sections 279 & 427 of the IPC, Sections 177 & 184 of the M.V.Act and Section 135 of the G.P.Act respectively by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue would not fall under the category of breach of public order. Learned advocate further submitted that it is not possible to hold, on the basis of the facts of the present case, that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected and disturbed the social fabric of society, eventually which would become threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of registration of criminal C/SCA/5059/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2023 cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order. It is also submitted that the detaining authority has also not applied its mind to the fact that the petitioner is released on bail in all offences.