The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between law and order and public order, and the requirement for activities to have the potential to disturb public order in order to justify preventive detention.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged the order of his detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/113/2021 dated 25.01.2022 issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The impugned order of detention has been passed on the basis of the activities elaborately narrated in the grounds of detention. As is indicated in the grounds of detention, the petitioner was booked in case FIR No. 65/2019 under Section 363, 376 and 109 RPC registered in Police Station Parimpora and was also arrested. It is submitted that after few months, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the competent Court of law. The petitioner, after coming out on bail, did not shun his illegal activities and indulged in luring the youth of the locality to fall in drug addiction. For his activities the petitioner was again booked in FIR No. 154/2021 under Sections 341, 307 and 506 IPC registered in Police Station Nigeen. On the basis of these two FIRs and the illegal activities of the petitioner reported by the Police, the District Magistrate, Srinagar, passed the impugned order of detention to prevent the petitioner from acting in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3. The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the activities of the petitioner indicated in the grounds of detention could only be a law and order problem and do not, in any manner, affect or disrupt the normal life of the community. It is submitted that in the two FIRs registered against the petitioner, the competent Court of law has already granted bail to the petitioner and it is not the case of the respondents that after having been released on bail in the FIR No. 154/2021, the petitioner has indulged in any activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is also the contention of the petitioner that though the petitioner had been released in both the FIRs, yet the Detaining Authority has not shown its awareness with respect to the petitioner having been released on bail in FIR No. 154/2021. In short, the primary ground of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the activities attributed to the petitioner, which are also subject matter of investigation in two FIRs, may pose the law and order problem but the same cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

4. Respondents have filed the reply affidavit of the District Magistrate. The plea of the petitioner is contested primarily on the ground that consistent and persistent unlawful activities of the petitioner have given sense of insecurity to the people of the locality and has created a serious problem in maintenance of public order. The petitioner is an incorrigible criminal and has been indulging in criminal activities over a period of time which has affected the community at large and, therefore, his activities have been found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that this petition is liable to succeed on the ground that the activities attributed to the petitioner, which have also resulted in registration of FIR No. 65/2019 and 154/2021, may constitute law and order problem but cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

6. The FIR registered in the year 2019 pertains to commission of sexual assault, in which the Court of competent jurisdiction has already enlarged the petitioner on bail. Though the Detaining Authority has not shown his awareness as to whether FIR No. 65/2019 has been challaned in the Court of law or not, yet it needs to be noticed that the law has to take its own course and the normal law of the land is sufficient to deal w