Preventive detention is distinct from criminal prosecution and can be legally ordered even if the detenue is facing trial for substantive offences, provided the detaining authority possesses sufficient material to reasonably infer a threat to public order.

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner, through the medium of the petition at hand, has impugned order bearing No.32/DMA/PSA/ DET/2025 dated 01.12.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Anantnag, placing the detenue, namely, Anwar Jan @Anwar Phamda, under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2) In the petition, it has been contended that the impugned detention order is bad in the eyes of law as the same is based on baseless and false grounds. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are founded on surmises and conjectures without there being any plausible and cogent reasons. It has been further contended that the detenue had been admitted to bail in FIR No.55/2025 of P/S Kokernag but this fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention, though the said FIR finds mention in the grounds of detention. It has been contended that there has been delay in execution of the impugned detention order which has not been explained by the respondents. It has also been contended that neither whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention nor its translated version has been furnished to the petitioner which has disabled him from making an effective representation against his detention. It has been further contended that there were no compelling reasons for detaining the petitioner under preventive detention laws. It has also been contended that the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier and the detaining authority has not applied its mind while formulating the grounds of detention. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed in violation of the procedural safeguards prescribed under the relevant laws.

3) The respondents have contested the petition by filing their reply affidavit, wherein it has been contended that the purpose of preventive detention is to detain a person and not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. It has been contended that all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. It has been contended that the petitioner is involved in a number of criminal cases and his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It has been contended that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and contents of the same were read over and explained to him; that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further contended in the reply affidavit that the impugned order has been passed validly, legally and after careful examination of the record/material. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record.

5) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has, while arguing, laid much emphasis on the following grounds:

(I) That there has been delay in service of grounds of detention upon the petitioner in the instant case, inasmuch as the impugned order of detention has been passed on 1st December, 2025 while a