JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Abdul Hamid Dar – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors. – Respondents
WP(Crl) No. 325 of 2022
Decided On : 20-09-2022
Preventive Detention - Public Order - J&K Public Safety Act - Section 8 - 420, 120B IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained under the J&K Public Safety Act based on allegations of involvement in criminal activities, including cheating and fraud. The detaining authority believed that the petitioner's release on bail would be detrimental to public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention was not sustainable as the alleged criminal acts did not constitute a threat to public order, but rather fell within the realm of law and order. The court emphasized the distinction between law and order and public order, highlighting that the impact on the community at large is essential to classify an act as affecting public order.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the petitioner's alleged criminal activities and whether they posed a threat to public order, as well as the sufficiency of the ordinary law to address the situation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of 'public order' and 'law and order' as distinct concepts, emphasizing that preventive detention should only be used to prevent public disorder. The court also emphasized the need for wider ramifications and impact on the public at large to justify preventive detention.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned detention order was set aside, and the detenue was directed to be released from preventive detention.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner, through his brother, Fayaz Ahmad Dar, has assailed his detention ordered by District Magistrate, Pulwama (the detaining authority) vide its order No. 37/DMP/PSA-22 dated 19.05.2022 (the impugned order). In terms of the impugned order aforesaid, the petitioner has been put under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner ('the detenue') to assail the impugned order, 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. As per the grounds of detention served upon the detenue, which are framed by the detaining authority on the basis of Police report dated 18-05- 2022, he is alleged to be 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 at the time of framing the grounds of detention, the detenue was shown to be on Police Remand. As it reveals from the grounds of detention, the detenue had been 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, since the detenue had applied for bail in the aforesaid FIR, therefore, 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 contained in the FIR, the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction to detain the detenue in order to restrain him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority, thus, found it imperative to detain the detenue by invoking Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act and it is in the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned detention order has been passed against the detenue and he has been lodged in District Jail Bhaderwah.
5. Despite opportunity granted, counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has not been filed. Mr. Asif Maqbool, Dy. AG, has provided scanned copy of the detention record.
6. The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the Detenue on several grounds. Learned counsel for the Detenue, however, laid much emphasis on the following grounds:
(I) That the detaining authority has relied upon the allegations contained in FIR No.123/2022 registered under Section 420, 120B IPC for indulging in cheating which, if found proved against the detenue, would constitute a criminal act and said criminal act can, by no means, be treated as an act to harm to public order;
(II) That the material relied upon by the detaining authority to derive subjective satisfaction with regard to necessity of putting the detenue under preventive detention was not supplied to the detenue in the language, which he could understand or read, thereby incapacitating him from making an effective representation to the detaining authority/government against his detention;
(III) That the grounds of detention are vague, irrele
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a direct and inevitable link between preventive detention and harm, danger, or alarm to the general public in the context of 'publi....
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 a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an act to warrant preventive detention on the grounds of public order, it must directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger, or alarm am....
The main legal point established is the distinction between law and order and public order, emphasizing that preventive detention should be reserved for emergent situations affecting public order.
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 t....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between law and order and public order, emphasizing that the activities must have the potential to disturb the public peace and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that activities must have the potential to disturb public order by affecting the community or public at large to be considered prejudicial to publi....
Preventive detention requires a clear demonstration of a threat to public order, and allegations that do not affect the community at large do not justify such detention.
: Preventive detention – Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under Preventive Detention Laws.
The detenue's right to make an effective representation against preventive detention is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Failure to supply the material forming the basis o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.