Preventive detention requires a live and proximate link between past conduct and current need to detain; stale incidents cannot justify detention without immediate threat to public order.

JUDGMENT

Through the medium of this writ petition, petitioner prays for quashment of detention Order No.DMS/PSA/04/2024 dated 29.3.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar – respondent no. 2 herein, whereby detenu, namely Riyaz Ahmad Azad @ Azad S/o Late Shamas ud din Azad R/o Saderbal, Srinagar , (for brevity “detenu”) has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the detenu being a criminal bent of mind which is evident from his conduct over a period of time and has been found indulging in anti-nation/nefarious activities in order to disturb the public peace and order, and his activities pose a serious threat to the public order as he is involved in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply/counter affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have perused the detention record produced by learned counsel for respondents and considered the matter.

4. The case set up by petitioner, in the petition, is that the detenu is an innocent person has been falsely implicated and has been detained under PSA; inasmuch as the grounds of detention are completely vague indefinite, cryptic and do not specify any specific allegations against the detenu. It is also stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu being a staunch cheater/fraudster and have cheated the general masses in District Srinagar; inasmuch as there is only one FIR No. 18/2015 U/S 420, 468 RPC registered in Police Station , Ram Munshi Bagh and a cheque bounce case under Section 138 NI Act pending against the detenu; inasmuch as the detenu has already been bailed out in the said FIR and there were no compelling reasons before the detaining authority to pass the detention order which is totally non application of mind.

5. It is further stated that the allegations mentioned in the FIR supra does not fall within the ambit of Section 8 as is defined under Public Safety Act 1978, neither the grounds of detention or dossier would show that the offences alleged against the detenu qua fraudster, fraud, cheating does fall within the embargo of Section 8, therefore, there is total non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the allegations as mentioned in the grounds of detention are contrary to law qua Section 8 of PSA. Even if, the allegations assumingly are true envisaged in the grounds of detention and dossier would not fall as public order as is denied in terms of Section 8 (3) (b) of PSA; inasmuch as , there is no proximate link between the grounds of detention and the eminent threat to the security of State or Public Order.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned detention order is without application of mind as there is no cogent reason for respondent no.2 to pass the detention order inasmuch as criminal law has already been set into motion against detenu. It is also averred that the detaining authority has not given any justification or cogent reason for passing of impugned order as to how the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, hence the detention order has no proximity with the procedure as envisaged under law. It is also stated that the right of life is a fundamental right of an individual and its protection needs paramount consideration given ample powers to the constitutional Courts as well as Civil Court of the country to provid