Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's bail status and communicate grounds in a language understood by the detenu, failing which the order is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through his wife (hereinafter referred to as the ‘detenu’) has challenged order No.PSA 03 of 2024 dated 30.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Jammu (‘the detaining authority’ for short) whereby he has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the public order.

2. The detenu is shown to be involved in as many as five different FIRs registered in the years 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2023 at Police Station, Khour and Police Station, Akhnoor. The detenu is allegedly involved in the commission of offences under Sections 188,307,323,427,147,148,379,332, 3/11 PCA Act and 4/25 Arms Act.It is mentioned in the grounds of detention that because of his persistent and continuous involvement in the criminal activities, the detenu has created fear amongst the locals. It is stated that the substantive law has failed to deter the detenu and, therefore, the impugned order is passed for the purpose of preventing and combating activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public safety.

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

(i) That the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. The detaining authority 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 it has not been brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority that in the aforesaid FIRs the detenu stood admitted to bail by the competent Court of law. The Detaining Authority has, thus, shown no awareness about the factum of detenu having been released on bail. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority without taking into consideration the said aspect is, thus, vitiated and is an outcome of total non application of mind.

(iii) That the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of dossier which shows non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority,

(iv) That the translated script in Gojri language of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the detenu.

4. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and stated that they have followed the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. It is submitted that the detenu has been detained only after following due procedure and that there has been proper application of mind for detaining the detenu. It is further submitted that the detenu has no respect for law of the land which is clearly reflected from the fact that a series of criminal cases stands registered against him, as a result of which, the detenu has become a threat to the life and liberty of the people at large. Thus, according to the respondents, the activities of the detenu are prejudicial and detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the area. The learned counsel for the respondents also produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the record produced by the respondents.

6. Although, learned counsel for the detenu has raised many grounds for assailing the impugned order of detention, yet, during the course of arguments, he has laid much emphasis on the following two grounds:

(i) That it has not been brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority that in the aforesaid FIRs the detenu stood admitted to bail by the competent Court of law.. The Detaining Authority has, thus, shown no awareness about the factum of detenu having been released on bail. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority witho