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 tranquility to fall within the sweep of 'public order'.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged his detention ordered by the respondent No.2 vide Order No. PSA/109 dated 21-05-2023, 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 subjective satisfaction drawn by respondent No.2 is founded on the grounds of detention prepared on the basis of dossier supplied by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, and served upon the detenue at the time of execution of the detention order.

3. The petitioner is shown to be involved in as many as ten different FIRs registered in the years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 at Police Station Rajbagh Kathua and Police Station Ramnagar, Udhampur. The petitioner is allegedly involved in the commission of offences under Sections 323/341/325/147/148/120-B/201/34/427/382/457/363/ 376/109/307 RPC and 4/25/4/27 Arms Act. It is mentioned in the grounds of detention that because of his persistent and continuous involvement in the criminal activities, the petitioner has created a sense of insecurity, terror and scare in the area and is disturbing communal harmony of the area. It is stated that the action taken against the detenue under the substantive law has not proved fruitful in deterring the detenue from indulging in continuous criminal acts. Though a close surveillance is being kept on the detenue but he has failed to mend his criminal acts and is reportedly engaged in prejudicial activities. It is also stated that out of ten FIRs registered against the detenue, in eight FIRs he has been granted bail by the competent Court whereas in two FIRs i.e. FIR Nos. 200/2021 and 101/2019 the detenue is absconding and is still at large.

4. The impugned order of detention is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the following grounds:-

(i) That the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. The respondent No.2 has, in the order of detention, referred to alleged commission of various offences and registration of FIRs, but has not spelled out how the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of different offences has the potential of disturbing the public order. The respondent No.2 has thus failed to make a distinction between what is prejudicial to public order and what is only a problem of law and order;

(ii) That the respondent No.2 has, in the grounds of detention, mentioned that petitioner has succeeded in securing bail in almost eight FIRs registered against him, and, on being released has again indulged in criminal activities. However, the respondent No.2 has not made any mention as to whether the prosecution ever sought cancellation of bail of the petitioner on the ground that he, while being on bail in a case, has again committed the crime;

(iii) That the petitioner was not provided with the requisite material relied upon by the respondent No.2 to draw subjective satisfaction as a result whereof the petitioner was deprived of his right to make an effective representation to the Government against his detention;

(iv) That the respondent No.2 has stated in the grounds of detention that in FIR No. 101/2019 the investigation is still going on, whereas the fact remains that charge sheet in FIR No. 101/2019 has been presented in the competent Court and even the statements of the prime two witnesses have been recorded during the trial. This shows total non-application of mind of the respondent No.2 while ordering the detention of the petitioner.

(v) That there is unexplained delay of almost 11 months in executing the order of detention. It is true that the Detenue Authority has, in the grounds of detention, mentioned that detenu, who is wanted in two FIRs, is absconding. However, efforts made by the police to nab him have not been indicated. If the detenu could be apprehended and detained under PSA, it remains to be explained as to why he could not be arrested in two FIRs he is wanted in. One FIR is in res