The court emphasized the narrow limits of preventive detention and the necessity to ensure that the facts directly and inevitably lead to harm, danger, or alarm to the public or any section thereof at large.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner, through his daughter, Ansab Niyaz, has assailed his detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama (the detaining authority) vide Order No. 38/DMP/PSA/22 dated 19.05.2022 (the impugned order), whereby the petitioner-Niyaz Ahmad Wani S/O Ab. Aziz Wani R/O New Colony, Pulwama ('the detenue') has been put under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, it is necessary to notice the material facts on the basis of which the detaining authority has derived its subjective satisfaction for placing the detenue under the preventive detention.

3. The grounds of detention which has been made basis by the detaianig authority for the preventive detention of the detenue is the Police report dated 18.05.2022, reveals that the detenue is involved in motivating and provoking the innocent youth, young and tender-aged boys for resorting to anti-social activities and that he is an active member of the gang 'TRATH GOLA' which is headed by Abdul Hamid Dar R/O Tujan Pulwama along with some other associates and is active in many Districts of the Valley. After the information was received by the police about the illegal activities of the detenue, FIR No. 123/2022 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC was registered and the detenue was apprehended in connection with the aforesaid FIR and was shown to be on Police Remand. The detenue is stated to be an active member of the gang since 2012, which was dishonestly and fraudulently extorting money worth Crores of rupees from gullible people on the pretext of paying returns in double and triple under the ' TRATH GOLA' a scam. It is also stated that the detenue had lured the people into the trap and the amount so collected was used in illegal, illegitimate and illicit activities. It is further alleged that the detenue along with his other associates hatched a conspiracy to loot the general masses and persuaded many to sold their properties to invest in 'TRATH GOLA' the scam, and that, the detaining authority was of the opinion that remaining at large of the detenue would be detrimental to the maintenance of peace and public order.

4. It is on the basis of these allegations, the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction to detain the detenue to deter him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such by invoking Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act passed the impugned detention order against the detenue and directed his lodgment in District Jail Bhaderwah.

5. The respondents in their counter affidavit insisted that after considering the material by the competent authority the activities of the detenue were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there were compelling reasons to detain the detenue under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

6. Mr. Asif Maqbool, Dy. AG, has provided scanned copy of the detention record.

7. The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner inter-alia on the following grounds:

(I) That the detaining authority has made the basis for the detention of the detenue, the sole FIR No.123/2022 registered by Police Station, Pulwama under Section 420, 120B IPC, if found proved against the detenue, would constitute a criminal act and cannot be treated as an act which will disturb the peace and public order;

(II) That the material relied upon by the detaining authority toarrive subjective satisfaction for puttingthe detenue under preventive detention was not supplied to the detenue and was not also explained him to the language, which he could understand, meaning, thereby that the detenue has been prevented from making an effective representation to the detaining authority or the Government against hisdetention;

(III) That the grounds of detention are vague, irrelevant and nonexistent and, therefore, no prudent peson can make an effective and