SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of an alleged habitual offender under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), dismissing a habeas corpus petition that challenged the detention on grounds of procedural violations, delay in execution, non-supply of translated documents and lack of compelling reasons for invoking preventive detention.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing HCP No. 1/2026, held that the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, on December 1, 2025, did not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the petitioner had failed to establish any violation of the statutory or constitutional safeguards available to a detenue. The judgment was reserved on June 4, 2026, pronounced on June 30, and uploaded on July 1.
The petition was filed by Anwar Jan alias Anwar Phamda, challenging Order No. 32/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, placing him under preventive detention to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Senior Advocate MA Goni, assisted by Advocate Tanzeela, appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway represented the Union Territory administration.
The petitioner argued that the detention order was based on false and vague allegations, that there had been an unexplained delay in serving the grounds of detention, that translated copies of the detention material had not been supplied to him despite being semi-literate, and that he was already facing criminal prosecution, making preventive detention unnecessary. He also alleged non-application of mind by the detaining authority and violation of procedural safeguards under the PSA.
Rejecting the contention regarding delay, the court observed that although the detention order was issued on December 1, 2025, it was executed on December 19, 2025, and the grounds of detention along with all relied-upon material were supplied to the detenue on the very same day. The court held that there was no legal requirement to furnish the documents before execution of the detention warrant and, therefore, no procedural violation had occurred.
On the issue of language, the court noted that the detention record showed the detenue had received copies of the detention order, grounds of detention, dossier and other documents, and that the contents had been read over and explained to him in Urdu by the executing officer. The executing officer had also filed an affidavit affirming compliance with this requirement. The court held that the petitioner’s plea of being denied an effective opportunity to make a representation was not borne out by the record.
Addressing the argument that preventive detention was unwarranted because criminal proceedings were already pending, Justice Dhar held that preventive detention and criminal prosecution operate in different fields. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, Naresh Kumar Goel v. Union of India and Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, the court reiterated that preventive detention can validly be ordered even when a person is facing prosecution if the detaining authority is satisfied that such detention is necessary to prevent acts prejudicial to public order.
The court also took note of the petitioner’s criminal history, observing that he had been involved in numerous criminal cases over the years, including offences relating to attempt to murder, dacoity, rioting, bovine smuggling, cheating, assault and criminal intimidation. It noted that the detention grounds referred to at least ten criminal cases registered over the previous three years, besides earlier preventive detention proceedings, which demonstrated a continuing pattern of criminal activity capable of disturbing public order.
Holding that there was sufficient material before the District Magistrate to arrive at the requisite subjective satisfaction for invoking preventive detention, the court found no ground to interfere with the detention order. It dismissed the petition as being without merit and directed that the detention records be returned to the government counsel.
