SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Kulgam man booked under the Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that his alleged repeated involvement in 11 cattle theft cases could create fear among local residents and disturb public order.
Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Tariq Ahmad Dar, son of Ghulam Hassan Dar and a resident of Raiwattan Asnoor in Manzgam area of Kulgam district, challenging detention order No. 07/DMK/PSA/2025 dated December 13, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Kulgam.
The petitioner had been detained under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, to prevent activities considered prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
In its judgment pronounced on September 25, 2026, the court held that the detention order was based on material relating to repeated allegations of similar offences across multiple criminal cases and did not warrant judicial interference.
According to the grounds of detention, Dar was implicated in 11 FIRs involving offences under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to alleged thefts of livestock and cattle. The court noted that charge-sheets had been filed in the cases and that the petitioner had secured bail.
The petitioner challenged the detention on several grounds, arguing that the allegations were offences under ordinary criminal law and did not justify preventive detention. His counsel also submitted that copies of the bail orders had not been supplied to him, depriving him of an effective opportunity to make a representation against his detention.
Another ground of challenge was that the detention grounds were prepared in English, although the petitioner was a labourer and allegedly did not understand the language. The petitioner argued that no translated copies had been provided, violating the safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the PSA.
The government opposed the petition, maintaining that the detaining authority had independently assessed the material and that the contents of the detention order and grounds had been explained to the detainee in a language he understood. It also argued that the bail orders were mentioned to indicate the status of the criminal cases and did not constitute the substantive material underlying the detention decision.
Examining the challenge, the High Court reiterated that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and that constitutional and statutory safeguards must be strictly observed. However, it said judicial review in such cases is limited to examining compliance with those safeguards and determining whether the detaining authority’s satisfaction rests on relevant material.
The court observed that the existence of pending criminal proceedings does not, by itself, prevent the authorities from invoking preventive detention. It said the relevant consideration is whether the nature, frequency, continuity and community impact of the alleged activities extend beyond an ordinary law-and-order issue and affect public order.
Distinguishing between law and order and public order, the court noted that the detaining authority had considered the alleged pattern of repeated cattle thefts across 11 FIRs rather than relying on a single incident. It held that the material could not be characterised as relating merely to an isolated or stale occurrence.
On the issue of bail orders, the court found no sufficient ground to invalidate the detention, noting that the grounds of detention disclosed that the petitioner had been granted bail in the criminal cases. It observed that the bail orders had not been shown to constitute independent foundational material whose non-supply would invalidate the detention.
Addressing the language-related objection, the court said the constitutional requirement was effective communication of the grounds in a language understood by the detainee, enabling him to make a meaningful representation. It found that the material on record and the government’s counter-affidavit indicated that the detention order and grounds had been explained to Dar in a language he understood and that he had been informed of his right to make a representation.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarfaraz Alam v. Union of India, reported as 2024 INSC 18, while examining the requirement of effective communication under Article 22(5).
Commenting on the alleged impact of the activities, the court observed that repeated thefts, even after release on bail, could create fear among local residents about the safety of their property, disturb their peace of mind and compel them to remain vigilant.
The High Court clarified that it was not deciding whether Dar was guilty of the offences alleged in the FIRs, stating that criminal liability would be determined by the competent criminal courts in accordance with law.
Finding no constitutional or statutory infirmity warranting interference, the court dismissed the habeas corpus petition along with the pending application and upheld the detention order.
