JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Shri Mohammad Hussain son of Shri Lal Hussain resident of Manohar Gopala Tehsil and District Samba (hereinafter “detenu”) has been placed under preventive detention vide Order No. 09/PSA of 2019 dated 15.04.2019, passed by District Magistrate, Samba – respondent No. 2 herein (for brevity “detaining authority”), so as to prevent detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and directed his lodgement in Sub Jail, Hiranagar. It is this order, of which petitioner is aggrieved and throws challenge thereto on the grounds tailored in petition on hand.

2. The case set up by petitioner in present petition is that he has been implicated in various criminal cases in different Police Stations of Samba, Jammu, and Kathua Districts, and is stated to have been lodged in Sub Jail, Hiranagar, to be detained under preventive custody in terms of the aforesaid detention order passed against him. It is contended that on the basis of some criminal cases, earlier way back in the year 2014, the petitioner was slapped with detention order bearing PSA No. 01/PSA of 2014 dated 22.01.2014 and in the year 2018 also, the District Magistrate, Samba passed another detention order bearing No. 01/PSA of 2018 dated 20.06.2018 against the petitioner. Both the aforesaid detention orders of 2014 and 2018 were challenged by the petitioner and also quashed by this Court. Petitioner contends that recently in the month of April, 2019, the respondents have passed a fresh detention order on the strength of grounds of detention mentioned therein against him and impugning the same, has filed the present petition seeking quashment thereof.

3. Response has been filed by respondent no. 2, fervently resisting the petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their submissions and also gone through the original detention record made available by Mr. Ayjaz Lone, learned Dy. AG.

5. Prior to adverting to case in hand, it would be apt to say that right of personal liberty is 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 v. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is 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 owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defence. However, framers of the Constitution have, by incorporating Article 22(5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person 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. In such a case it would be dangerous for the people at large, to wait and watch as by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person, having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing general public to risk and causing colossal damage to life and property. It is, for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent a person bent upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22(5) Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law.

6. The essential concept of prevent