Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
Sumit Slathia @ Bhanu Partap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through its Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Home Department – Respondent
HCP No. 90 of 2024
Decided on : 11-09-2024
(A) Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 - Section 8 - Preventive detention - Writ of habeas corpus sought against detention order No. 18/PSA of 2024 dated 08.05.2024 - Allegations of being a habitual criminal and involvement in multiple FIRs - Court held that preventive detention was unwarranted and illegal due to lack of sufficient grounds related to public order. (Paras 23, 24)
(B) Preventive Detention - The exercise of preventive detention jurisdiction is fact-sensitive and requires full disclosure of relevant facts to ensure the protection of personal liberty. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 based on allegations of being a habitual criminal involved in multiple FIRs. The detention order was challenged on grounds of legality and sufficiency of evidence. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The preventive detention order was set aside as it was deemed unwarranted and misconceived, restoring the petitioner’s personal liberty. (Paras 23, 24)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the detention order and whether the grounds cited were sufficient to justify preventive detention. (Paras 20, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that preventive detention cannot substitute punitive measures and must be based on current and relevant facts to justify curtailing personal liberty. (Paras 20, 22)
Result: The preventive detention order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be released. (Paras 23, 24)
JUDGMENT :
01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned AAG for the respondents. Perused the pleadings and the record therewith. Also perused the detention record produced by Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned AAG.
02. The petitioner, who has been detained under the preventive detention custody, has petitioned this Court through his father –Jagdish Singh seeking a writ of habeas corpus under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of preventive detention against him and his consequent release from illegal custody imposed upon him by virtue of an impugned detention order No.18/PSA of 2024 dated 08.05.2024.
03. The background facts related to the detention of the petitioner are that the respondent No. 3 - Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Samba, by a communication No. Legal/PSA/2024/ 910-13 dated 06.05.2024, came to submit a dossier to the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Samba against the petitioner seeking his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 alleging that the petitioner’s liberty was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order on account of the alleged acts of omission and commission of the petitioner.
04. In his dossier, the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Samba came to introduce the petitioner to be a notorious and hard core habitual criminal, a desperate character being involved in many criminal offences by blatantly following the rule of law including assault, stabbing and carrying out his criminal activities thereby terrorizing the innocent citizens. The petitioner is referred to be a person having no respect for the law of the land with number of cases registered against him rendering his activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner’s reported acts were said to have set in by terror and fear amongst the locals thereby disturbing the tempo of the life of the community which has made the general public to feel quite insecure. The petitioner is referred to be a close associate of Vicky Slathia @ Vicky Khouf operating a Khouf Gang.
05. The petitioner’s involvement in FIR No. 38/2020 under section 420/109 Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered with the Police Station Vijaypur, FIR No. 102/2023 under section 451/323/504/506 Indian Penal Code with the Police Station Vijaypur, FIR No. 14/2015 under section 307/341/34 Ranbir Penal Code read with section 4/25 Arms Act, 1959 with the Police Station Vijaypur, FIR No. 201/2014 under section 341/323/147/148 Ranbir Penal Code with the Police Station Samba and FIR No. 32/2017 under section 341/323/34 Ranbir Penal Code read with 4/25 Arms Act, 1959 with the Police Station Vijaypur have been cited and referred in the dossier by the respondent No. 3 – Sr.Superintendent of Police (SSP), Samba.
06. Acting upon the said dossier, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Samba came to formulate the grounds of detention therefrom purportedly deriving a subjective satisfaction that warranted the preventive detention of the petitioner under section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 on account of the petitioner’s activities being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, accordingly, an Order No. 18/PSA of 2024 dated 08.05.2024 came to be passed directing the detention of the petitioner and his lodgment in District Jail Kathua.
07. Simultaneous upon the passing of the aforesaid detention order No. 18/PSA of 2024 dated 08.05.2024, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Samba came to address a communication No.DMS/JC/PSA/24-25/166-70 dated 08.05.2024 addressed to the petitioner to apprise him about passing of the detention order No. 18/PSA of 2024 dated 08.05.2024 and communication No. DMS/JC/PSA/24-25/171/75 dated 08.05.2024 to the petitioner’s father – Jagdish Singh also apprising him about the fact of passing of detention order No. 18/PSA of 2024 dated 08.05.2024 against the petitioner.
08. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Samba by virtue
Preventive detention under the J&K Public Safety Act requires sufficient grounds related to public order; mere allegations without current relevance do not justify detention.
Preventive detention must be justified by clear grounds and cannot serve punitive purposes; failure to differentiate factual basis renders detention illegal.
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....
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act must be justified by current threats to public order, not merely by past criminal activities.
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act must be justified by a clear threat to public order, not merely based on past criminal activities.
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.
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act must be justified by current threats to public order, not merely past criminal behavior.
Preventive detention must be based on immediate threats to public order, not merely on past criminal behavior, and should not bypass ordinary criminal law.
Preventive detention must be based on clear evidence of imminent threat to public order, not solely on historical allegations; Courts emphasize independent scrutiny by authorities.
The court held that preventive detention requires substantiated and lawful justifications, ruling against arbitrary state authority.
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
