JUDGMENT :

1. Detenu – Ashiq Hussain Malik son of Mohammad Shafi Malik resident of Arwani Tehsil Bijbehara District Anantnag, through his father, by the instant petition, seeks quashment of detention order No.73/DMA/PSA/DET/2018 dated 16.01.2019, passed by District Magistrate, Anantnag, (for brevity “Detaining Authority”) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety act, 1978.

2. The detention order, through the medium of petition on hand, has been challenged on the grounds that during the intervening night of 6th and 7th of December, 2018, the detenue was arrested in connection with case FIR No.168/2018 registered at Police Station, Bijbehara, under Section 13 ULA(P) Act and while in custody he has been taken into preventive custody pursuant to impugned detention order. Respondents are stated to have ignored to provide material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention and thus deprived the detenue of his Constitutional and Statutory rights. Grounds of detention are stated to be vague, baseless, non-existent and unfounded.

3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition. They have stated that the provisions of the Public Safety Act have been followed and the detenue has been detained only after following due procedure prescribed in terms of Public Safety Act. The grounds of detention were explained to the detenue in the Urdu and Kashmiri language. There has been proper application of mind for detaining the detenue. The detenue has been provided all the material which was considered by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order. In the ends, it has been prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the detenue record so as to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner projected that when the detenue was already in custody, there was no need to direct his preventive detention. Further, arrest of the detenue in connection with aforesaid criminal case, at the time of passing of the order of detention, has not been disputed.

6. The object of passing the order of detention is to deter a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or public order. When the movement of the person is already under curtailment i.e. is in custody in connection with a criminal case, then there can be no requirement of preventive detention, unless, of course, circumstances exist for passing order of detention. Preventive laws have the effect of depriving a person of liberty which is precious, deprivation thereof at times may be unavoidable, for justifying such deprivation, safeguards as are provided by law are required to be respected. A person who dares to cause any type of insecurity or threatens security of the State has to be dealt with iron hand but for so doing the Constitutional safeguards as are available are also to be respected.

7. Law is well settled that when a person is in custody of the police, the detaining authority is required to spell out the reasons as to why a person who was already in substantive custody was being detained in preventive custody. Absence of such reasons in the grounds of detention renders the detention illegal and such an order would clearly demonstrate non-application of mind of the detaining authority. In this view, I am fortified by the judgment of this in “Mohammad Hussain Dar v. State and others” reported in 2007(2) JKJ HC-231.

8. It is settled position of law that a person in involved in a criminal case can be detained under the provisions of preventive laws provided there are compelling circumstances for so doing otherwise the order of detention shall be bad. In this connection, it is quite apt to quote following Para from the judgment “T. P. Moideen Koya vs. Government of Kerala and Ors