The judgment establishes the limited scope of judicial review at pre-execution stage in cases of preventive detention, emphasizing the difference between preventive and punitive detention and the need for caution in exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Hasnain Massodi, J.—Letters Patent Appeal on hand, is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 9.7.2012 in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 15/2012 titled "Mohammad Amin Beigh versus State of J&K and anr.", whereby the writ court has dismissed the appellant's petition for quashment of detention order No. DMS/PSA/53/2011 dated 26.12.2011 at pre-Execution stage. District Magistrate, Srinagar on going through the communication No. Lgl/Det-2759/2011/5884-87 dated 15.11.2011 received from Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar along with dossier and connected material/documents appended to the communication, recorded his subjective satisfaction concluding that the appellant was required to be placed under preventive detention so as to stop him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order' and accordingly vide his order No. DMS/PSA/53/2011 dated 26.12.2011, ordered appellant's detention and lodgment in Kote Bhalwal Jail, Jammu.

2. The detention order could not be executed as the appellant avoided its execution and questioned it at pre execution stage, through medium of a Habeas Corpus Petition, being HCP No. 15/2012.

3. The appellant's case was that the detention order was not based on any valid ground; did not refer to any record on which it had its edifice and that the grounds of detention were vague, irrelevant and extraneous. The appellant insisted that case FIR No. 40/2011 under Sections 376/ 511, 451/ 506 RPC, Police Station Kralkhud, Srinagar was to be dealt with in accordance with ordinary law and would not justify his preventive detention. It was pleaded that the appellant had been let off on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and the right course for the respondents was to seek cancellation of his bail and not fall back upon Section 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 and order his preventive detention.

4. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the case projected and dismissed the petition vide his order dated 9.7.2012, impugned in the present appeal.

5. The memo of appeal, reiterates the grounds set out in the Habeas Corpus petition. The detention order is alleged to have been passed with oblique motive, in a mechanical manner, and to suffer from non application of mind. The detaining authority is said to have in the 'grounds of detention' mentioned likelihood of the appellant being admitted to bail in case FIR No. 40/2011 under Sections 376/ 511, 451/ 506 RPC as one of the grounds to pass the detention order unmindful of fact that the appellant was out on bail on the date the grounds of detention were formulated and the detention order passed. It is pleaded that a solitary incident, alleged against the appellant, should not have persuaded the detaining authority to presume that such acts would be repeated and detention order was the only way. Learned Single Judge, according to the appellant, did not deal with all the grounds set out in the petition to question the detention order.

6. We have gone through the appeal and the record. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior Additional Advocate General.

7. The right of personal liberty is the most precious right guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, in-alienable 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 Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty because of the criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case the prosecution fails to bring