AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sindhu Sharma, J
The petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of impugned detention order No. PSA 18 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu under Section 8(1) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner through his mother-Jasvinder Kour.
The detention of the petitioner was ordered by the District Magistrate, Jammu, under Section 8(1) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of detention on the following grounds:
(i) The detaining authority has ordered the detention casually, mechanically and without any proper application of mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
(ii) The grounds of detention verbatim of the police dossier, as such, there is no application of mind by the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned order of detention.
(iii) There is no subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining 2025:JKLHC-JMU:906 Authority that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(iv) The grounds of detention were not read over to the petitioner in the language he understands and were either illegible or incomplete and all the relevant documents were not provided to him.
(v) There is no material on record to establish or justify the detention of the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Thappa, learned AAG, has filed the counter affidavit and also produced the record of detention.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is aimed at promoting hatred and causing mischief within the community. The offences committed by the petitioner pose a grave threat to society and the maintenance of public order. There exists a live and proximate link between the past conduct of the petitioner, as such, it was imperative to detain him.
It is further submitted that that all the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Public Safety Act and other rights as guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India have been followed, and none of the constitutional and statutory rights of the petitioner have been infringed or violated by the answering respondents. The detention order has been passed by the detaining authority after arriving at subjective satisfaction based on cogent material available with them. The grounds of detention, order of detention, dossier of detention, and other relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority have been provided to the petitioner, and he was also informed of his right to make a representation against the order of detention.
It is also submitted that the contents of the detention order and2025:JKLHC-JMU:906 grounds of detention were read over and explained to the petitioner in Hindi/Dogri language, which he fully understood, and his signature was obtained in the execution report. Thus, the contention of the petitioner regarding the non-supply of material is not sustainable.
It is submitted that as per the dossier of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, dated 06.04.2024, the petitioner is a hard-core criminal and is involved in numerous criminal offences of serious nature, blatantly violating the rule of law and indulging in assault, criminal trespass, attempt to murder, and violations of the Arms Act and NDPS Act. These repeated offences committed by the petitioner are promoting mischief in the community. The conduct of the petitioner is detrimental to peace and tranquility of society. Several FIRs are registered against the petitioner for offences under the Penal Code, Arms Act, and NDPS Act in different police stations. The petitioner has no respect for the law of the land, and his activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The actions of the petitioner have shaken the confidence of the general public, resulting in a sense of fear and insecurity among the people of the area.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record.
The right of personal liberty is the most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, inalienable, and available to a person independent of the Constitution. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with procedures established under law, and the procedure as laid down in "Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India," 1978 AIR SC 597, is to be just and fair. Personal liberty may be curtailed where a person faces a criminal charge or 2025:JKLHCis-JMU:906 convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides for the detention of a person without a formal
charge and trial and without such person being held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim and object are to save society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty.
It is well settled that the purpose of preventive detention is not to punish a person for something he has done but to prevent him from committing an act prejudicial either to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order. In “Haradhan Saha V. State of West Bengal”, (1975) 3 SCC 198, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no parallel between prosecution in a court of law and a detention order under the Public Safety Act. The former is a punitive action, while the latter is a preventive measure. In prosecution, a person is punished upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in preventive detention, an individual is restrained from acting in a manner that is considered necessary to prevent certain activities as mentioned in the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
“The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The, basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one, case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something2025:JKLHC-JMU:906 which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent.”
In “Khudiram Das vs. State of West Bengal and others”, (1975) 2 SCR 832, it was held that:-
“………..The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. Since every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof.…………”
Similarly, in “Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order) and another vs. Nabila and another”, (2015) 12 SCC 127, it was held that a single act may not always be sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction for detention. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
“Indisputably, the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive, but only preventive. In case of preventive detention no offence is to be proved nor is any charge formulated. The justification of such detention is suspicion and reasonability and there is no criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence…”
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was provided with all the material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. The receipt of detention indicates that the petitioner was furnished with detention order (1 leaf), notice of detention (1 leaf), grounds of detention (6 leaves), dossier of detention (7 leaves), copies of FIR, statement of witnesses and other related relevant documents (211 leaves) (total 226 leaves). It further establishes that the petitioner received all relevant material, which was explained to him in Hindi and Dogri, languages he understood. The petitioner signed the receipt of detention in English, demonstrating his sufficient knowledge of the same. Therefore,2025:JKLHC-JMU:906 the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not understood the grounds of detention sufficiently to make a representation is not borne out from the record.
The Detaining Authority has observed that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in multiple criminal offences, blatantly violating the rule of law. The consistent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities of drug trafficking, attempted murder, assault, and stabbing, using illegal firearms and sharp-edged weapons has resulted in terrorizing innocent citizens and has damaged the society. The petitioner has no regard for the law of the land, and several cases have been registered against him. His activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as he continues to supply contraband substances to the youth, instilling fear among parents and local residents. The residents, particularly parents, feel insecure about the safety and well-being of their growing children due to his actions. Despite all these activities, the petitioner continuously engaged in drug peddling and criminal activities, making him a chronic offender. The Detaining Authority, after considering his past conduct found it imperative to detain him to prevent him from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
In light of the above discussion, it is evident that the detaining authority has complied with all statutory and constitutional safeguards while passing the impugned detention order. The material relied upon by the authority was duly provided to the petitioner, and the grounds of detention were explained to him in a language he understands. The Detaining Authority, after recording its subjective satisfaction, has passed the impugned order of detention based on cogent material demonstrating that the petitioner is 2025:JKLHCa-JMU:906 hard-core criminal and habitual offender. The petitioner has been involved in as many as 11 FIRs for offences under the IPC, Arms Act, and NDPS Act and the actions of the petitioner have created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity in society, particularly among the youth and their families.
Preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, is intended to ensure the maintenance of public order and to prevent threats to society. Therefore, the detention order has been lawfully issued and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order of detention. Thus, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Let the detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents by the Registry forthwith.