The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Tariq Ahmad Dar, affirming the legality of his preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The Court ruled that the petitioner’s repeated involvement in multiple criminal cases concerning livestock and cattle theft had transcended the scope of ordinary criminal offences, effectively disturbing the even tempo of public life and creating a "fear psychosis" among local residents. By upholding the order issued by the District Magistrate of Kulgam, the Bench emphasized that the State is empowered to utilize preventive detention measures when an individual’s activities display a sustained pattern that threatens the collective peace of the community.

The petitioner had been detained under Section 8 of the Public Safety Act, following his implication in eleven separate First Information Reports (FIRs) related to the theft of cattle. Despite being admitted to bail in several of these criminal cases, the authorities argued that the petitioner’s release posed a continuing risk to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner’s legal counsel challenged the detention on various grounds, alleging that the activities cited by the administration were merely law-and-order issues that should be adjudicated through standard criminal procedures. Furthermore, the defense contended that constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India—specifically the right to receive detention grounds in a language understood by the detainee—were violated, as the documents were provided in English.

Assessing the Threat to Community Stability

In his judgment, Justice M. A. Chowdhary addressed the distinction between isolated criminal acts and activities that necessitate preventive detention. The Court noted that while individual acts of theft are typically handled under the ordinary penal code, the frequency, continuity, and impact of such actions must be evaluated to determine their cumulative effect on the public. The ruling clarified that the primary question in such matters is whether the subject's habitual conduct disrupts the security and safety of the community.

"It may not be out of place to say that the repeated commissions of thefts, even after his release on being admitted to bail, amounts to create fear psychosis in the local population, worrying about the safety of their properties, alarming them to be alert, spoiling their peace of mind," the Court observed. This reasoning underscores the judiciary's position that the detaining authority is entitled to consider the aggregate impact of a series of crimes rather than viewing each case in isolation. By establishing a pattern of repeated offences, the detaining authority sufficiently justified its subjective satisfaction that the petitioner’s liberty would remain a threat to public order if left unrestricted.

The Court also rejected the argument that the pendency of criminal proceedings bars the state from invoking the Public Safety Act. According to the bench, preventive detention functions within a distinct legal framework. The ruling clarified that the state acts to prevent future harm rather than merely punishing past conduct. " Preventive detention operates in a different field. The relevant question is whether, notwithstanding the availability of ordinary criminal law, the antecedent activities and their continuing tendency furnish material for the satisfaction that the detenue is required to be prevented from acting prejudicially to public order."

Evaluating Procedural Fairness and Representation

Addressing the procedural challenge concerning the non-supply of bail orders and the language in which the detention grounds were served, the Court reviewed the contemporaneous records provided by the respondents. The bench found that the detaining authority had acted with awareness of the petitioner’s legal status, including his previous bail orders. The judgment noted that the reference to bail in the grounds of detention served to illustrate that despite judicial intervention in criminal cases, the petitioner’s activities persisted, thereby highlighting the necessity for preventive measures.

On the issue of language, the Court reaffirmed that the constitutional requirement is for effective communication. Upon reviewing the counter-affidavit and the record of service, the bench concluded that the contents of the detention order had been adequately explained to the petitioner in a language he understood. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice or that he was unable to make an effective representation due to the language of the documents. The Court observed that the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(5) is meant to ensure a fair opportunity for the detainee to respond, and in this instance, the material placed on record satisfied those standards.

The judgment clarifies that the judicial function in a habeas corpus petition is not to re-evaluate the evidence regarding the guilt or innocence of the petitioner in the underlying criminal FIRs. That responsibility remains with the competent criminal courts. Instead, the High Court’s limited role is to verify that the detaining authority complied with the statutory safeguards and that the decision was based on relevant material rather than extraneous considerations. Having found no procedural infirmity or abuse of discretion in the decision-making process, the Court upheld the detention order as valid and legally sound.

The petition stands dismissed, and the detention order remains in effect. The scanned detention record has been ordered to be returned to the respondents, concluding this phase of the judicial review. The petitioner remains in custody, with the Court confirming that the authorities acted within their legal mandate to preserve public order in the Kulgam district.