Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAHUL BHARTI, J
Tarun Bahl Son Of Sh. V. K. Bahl – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of J&k Through Principal Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. Perused the pleadings of both sides and also the scanned detention record produced at the end of the respondents.
2. The case in hand is an exhibit of a preventive detention measure under the aegis of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 being resorted to as a perverted detention by the District Police and District Executive Magistracy as an extra legal expedience not only to curb fundamental right to personal liberty of the petitioner but also a stratagem to outmaneuver the constitutional and criminal courts indulgence in the matter of granting bail in favour of the petitioner thereby to show off that the fiat of Police and dictate Executive outruns the writ and commands of the constitutional and criminal court.
3. The petitioner, acting through his wife, has petitioned this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of retrieving and restoring the personal liberty of the petitioner which he has come to lose by virtue of detention order No. PSA-30 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 – District Magist
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act was found illegal due to lack of substantive grounds and procedural violations, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty.
The distinction between law and order and public order is crucial in cases of preventive detention, and the impact on the community must be considered. The failure to respond to the petitioner's repr....
The court held that preventive detention requires substantiated and lawful justifications, ruling against arbitrary state authority.
Preventive detention must be justified by clear grounds and cannot serve punitive purposes; failure to differentiate factual basis renders detention illegal.
Preventive detention orders must have a clear link to recent activities; failure to disclose essential facts renders such orders illegal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
