Detention justified despite pending criminal cases, as activities pose a threat to public order, rules court.
In a significant ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the preventive detention of Anwar Jan Choudhhary, dismissing his petition challenging the detention order issued by the District Magistrate of Anantnag. The decision, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, emphasized that preventive detention could be justified even when criminal prosecutions are pending, provided there is substantial material indicating a threat to public order.
The case revolved around the detention order dated December 1, 2025, which aimed to prevent Anwar Jan from engaging in activities prejudicial to public order. Despite being granted bail in a related criminal case (FIR No.55/2025), the petitioner argued the detention order was based on unfounded grounds and procedural violations, including delays in execution and non-furnishing of translated materials.
The court, however, found no merit in these claims, citing that the grounds of detention and relevant materials were furnished to the detenue on the day the detention warrant was executed, adhering to the legal requirements under the J&K Public Safety Act. The court also noted that the contents of the documents were explained to the semi-literate detenue in a language he understood, fulfilling procedural safeguards.
Moreover, the court examined the petitioner's criminal history, which included multiple cases of serious offenses such as attempt to murder, dacoity, and bovine smuggling, spread over recent years. The court ruled that this pattern of criminal conduct justified the detaining authority's decision, as it posed a potential threat to public peace and order.
The judgment referenced past Supreme Court rulings, including Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, which support the use of preventive detention irrespective of ongoing prosecutions, provided there is a reasonable inference of threat to public order.
By upholding the detention order, the court underscored the principle that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, based on substantial material, is not open to judicial review unless found arbitrary or unfounded. This decision reaffirms the legal framework supporting preventive detention as a necessary tool for maintaining public order, especially in cases with substantial evidence of habitual criminality.
Bottom line:-
Preventive detention can be ordered irrespective of pending criminal prosecution or ongoing cases, provided there is sufficient material indicating a threat to public order.
Statutory provision(s): Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, Relevant Supreme Court Judgments: Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, Naresh Kumar Goel v. Union of India, Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad.
