Preventive detention under the J&K Public Safety Act is justified when the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction is based on sufficient material indicating potential prejudicial activities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of Order No.13/DMB/PSA of 2024 dated 19.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Bandipora – respondent no.2 (detaining authority), whereby the detenu, namely, Ghulam u Din War S/o Late Habibulla War R/o Tengpora Naidkhai Tehsil Hajin District Bnadipora, has been placed under preventive detention to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. Reply has been filed by the respondents.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I gone through the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents and considered the matter.

4. Assailing the impugned order, counsel appearing for petitioner has stated that detenu has been falsely implicated by police station Sumbal in a number of FIRs in the year 2010, 2014 and 2016 on the basis of ill will, mala fide and extraneous consideration and police manipulated false charges against detenu, but detenu got bailed out from every false charges. The grounds of detention have been concocted and fabricated and impugned order of detention has been passed only on apprehension. The material relied upon by detaining authority has not been furnished to detenu to make an effective representation. Detenu was not told about his right to whom representation was to be made against his detention.

5. The above contentions of counsel for petitioner are misconceived. The reason being that perusal of communication no.DMB/PSA/2024/228- 30 dated 19.04.2024, addressed to detenu, in unequivocal terms mentions that detenu has been informed to make representation to the Government and Detaining Authority against detention order. Therefore, he cannot be heard saying that he was informed to whom representation was to be made against his detention.

6. Perusal of grounds of detention reveals that exclusive subjective satisfaction has not been reached on the basis of nine FIRs, but there had been inputs, reports and material before the detaining authority which suggested that detenu even after bailed out in the FIRs, had been indulging in antinational activities. It is also mentioned in grounds of detention that beat officer of concerned area along with report of concerned Chowkidar and Lumberdar revealed about detenu’s involvement in antinational activities and if kept free detenu may again indulge in antinational activities.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Debu Mahato v. State of W.B. (1974) 4 SCC 135, has categorically observed and said that while ordinarily- speaking one act may not be sufficient to form requisite satisfaction, there is no such invariable rule and that in a given case “one act may suffice”. That was a case of wagon-breaking and given the nature of the Act, it was held therein that “one act is sufficient”. The same principle was reiterated in the case of Anil Dely v. State of W.B. (1974) 4 SCC 514. It was only a case of theft of railway signal material. Here too “one act was held to be sufficient”.

8. Similarly, in Israil S K v. District Magistrate of West Dinajpur (1975) 3 SCC 292 and Dharua Kanu v. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 527, single act of theft of telegraph copper wires in huge quantity and removal of railway fish-plates respectively, was held sufficient to sustain the order of detention. In Saraswathi Seshagiri v. State of Kerala (1982) 2 SCC 310, a case arising under a single act, viz. attempt to export a huge amount of Indian currency was held sufficient. In short, the principle appears to be this: “Though ordinarily one act may not be held sufficient to sustain an order of detention, one act may sustain an order of detention if the act is of such a nature as to indicate that it is an organised act or a manifestation of organised activity.”

9. The gravity and nature of the act is also relevant. The test is whether the act is such that it gives rise to an inference that the person would continue to indulge in similar prejudicial activity. That is the reason why si