Mohd Amin Age 33 Years S/O Mohd Ibrahim ... vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir ... on 30 January, 2023

[Cites 15, Cited by 1]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Mohd Amin Age 33 Years S/O Mohd Ibrahim ... vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir ... on 30 January, 2023

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Mohd Amin age 33 years S/O Mohd Ibrahim R/O Manjmi Dessa (a/p Susarwar Tehsil Bhagwah) District Doda, seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the validity of the order of detention dated 28-06-2022 passed by respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Doda) u/s 8 of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (for short „the Act‟) vide his detention order No. 30/DM/DODA/PSA/2022 dated 28-06-2022 on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the passing of impugned detention order, petitioner has questioned its legality, propriety & correctness and has sought its quashment/setting aside on the following grounds:

(i) that the detention order has been passed by R-2 (District Magistrate Doda) on the basis of grounds of detention without application of mind and without considering the material before him, which are stale, irrelevant and insufficient to reach a conclusion of detaining the petitioner under draconian and notorious Public Safety Act 1978 as the detention order was communicated to the petitioner on 01-07-

2022 in Jail vide communication No. 38-44/DM/DODA/PSA/2022 dated 28-06-2022;

2 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022

(ii) that the detention order is based on dossier prepared by respondent No.3 (SSP Doda) and submitted to respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Doda) on the same day on 28-06-2022, the dossier contains the allegations against the petitioner for commission of offence of smuggling of bovine animals and cruelty to the animals punishable u/s 188 of IPC/RPC r/w Section 3 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in FIR Nos. 225/2012, 233/2014, 127/2016, 253/2016, 94/2017, 194/2018 & 39/2021 registered in Police Station Doda, which are 10 years, 8 years, 6 years, 5 years, 4 years and 1 year old and none of the offences are heinous or against the violation of public order;

(iii) that the grounds of detention are verbatim repeat of dossier of SSP Doda and the District Magistrate Doda without adding something to the dossier and without application of his mind on the allegations contained in the dossier has passed the detention order on the same day, which vitiates the detention order.

2. Counter has been filed by respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Doda ) specifically making averments, that the detenue was informed about his right to make representation against his detention, the detaining authority indisputably keeping in mind the very object of law of preventive detention being not punitive but only preventive has passed the impugned detention order after carefully perusing the dossier provided and relevant record and after being satisfied and convinced that the detention of petitioner is in the interest of society and state. It is contended, that the petitioner was detained under the provisions of the Public Safety Act validly and legally by virtue of detention order No. 30/DM/DODA/PSA/2022 dated 28-06-2022 issued by R-2 (District Magistrate Doda), all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority which has passed the order of detention after subjective satisfaction in the matter, the grounds of detention, order of detention, as well as entire material relied upon by the detaining authority came to be furnished to the detenue well within statutory period provided under Section 13 of the Act, warrant was accordingly executed by Executing Officer namely SI Abhishekh Phagotra PID No.196714 of Police Station Doda and detenue was handed over to SP Central Jail Kot Bhalwal Jammu for lodgment on 29-06-2022. It is moreso contended, that the detention order passed by R-2 (District Magistrate Doda) is not against the law and liberty of the petitioner, but due care and proper application of mind has been applied while doing so as the petitioner was time and again warned to shun the path of illegal bovine smuggling by which the sentiments of a particular community may hurt, however, petitioner did not mend his ways and continued to do so, and as many as 7 FIRs for 3 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 bovine smuggling has been registered against him, the activities of petitioner are anti-social which can hurt the sentiments of particular community at large and create the feeling of enmity, hatred and disharmony on the ground of religion whereby likely to disturb the public order in the area, the petitioner is habitual offender and use to smuggle the bovine animals in the night hours only without valid permission, petitioner is hell bent to carry his illegal activities/trade for the last 10 years as 1st FIR was registered against him in the year 2012. It is contended, that the order of detention alongwith dossier and relevant documents have been supplied to the petitioner as soon as he was detained under PSA under proper acknowledgement, the activities of petitioner may hurt the sentiments of large section of other community, the personal liberty of petitioner has never been interfered as he was given ample time to ameliorate his ways but he failed to do so, hence detained under PSA.

3. Sh. M.A. Bhat, learned counsel for petitioner while reiterating the grounds averred in the memo of petition, has sought the quashment of the impugned detention order and release of petitioner by canvassing arguments, that respondent No.2 has not applied his mind properly while passing the order of detention, because as per the order of detention, the dossier has been submitted to respondent No.2 on 27-06-2022 by respondent No.3 and on the next day on 28-06-2022 in hot haste respondent No.2 has passed the order of detention which clearly shown that everything has been done in a rush and casual manner in order to falsely implicate the petitioner in a false case of Public Safety Act. It is argued, that the grounds of detention mentioned in the order are verbatim copy of the dossier with interplay of some words here and there, which exhibits that the respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Doda) has not applied his mind properly at the time of passing of the order, moreso, the representations made by the petitioner to Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt., District Magistrate (detaining authority) Doda & Chairman State Advisory Board under PSA on 06.07.2022 have shown unexplained delay in deciding the said representations, the detention order does not contain any period for which petitioner is sought to have been detained, as such, on these counts also the order impugned is bad and the same deserves to be set aside. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments viz; (i) WP (Crl) No. 131/2021 (Nazir Ahmad War Versus UT of J&K & Anr.), (ii) WP (Crl) No. 151/2021 (Javid Ahmad Mir Versus UT of 4 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 J&K & Anr.) & (iii) 2021 Legal Eagle SC 731 [Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Versus District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors].

4. Sh. Adarsh Bhagat, learned GA per-contra, has defended the passing of impugned detention order and has sought the outright rejection and dismissal of the writ petition by vehemently articulating arguments, that the preventive detention is devised to afford protection to the society, the object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing in future, any preventive measure even if it involves some restraint or hardship upon the individuals do not partake in any way of the nature of punishment but are taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the state, the particular acts reflected in the grounds of detention in the case in hand clearly show that activities of petitioner cover a wide field and fall within the contours of maintenance of public order, the order of detention therefore is not rendered invalid merely because the grounds of detention were furnished on the same day or the next day which cannot be construed as in rush and casual manner. It is argued, that it is the detaining authority to take decision in accordance with law in holding that the subjective satisfaction has been arrived and there is real and imminent possibility of the detenue to indulge in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, all the documents/essential material basing the issuance of detention order have been supplied to the petitioner and made him to understand in the language the petitioner understands and moreso the grounds of detention are not verbatim copy of the dossier. It is moreso argued, that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to see whether order of detention has been passed on any material before it, it can examine the material on record only for the purpose of seeing whether order of detention has been based on no material, the satisfaction maintained in Section 3 of the Act is satisfaction of the detaining authority and not of the court, the court can only examine whether grounds disclosed in the detention order are relevant to the object of preventive detention Act.

5. I have heard and considered the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, gone through the grounds of detention, counter filed by the respondents and the detention record made available by learned GA. I have also bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the material aspects involved in the case and have meticulously scanned the ratios of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022

6. The 1 argument portrayed by learned counsel for petitioner is, the detention order has been passed by R-2 (District Magistrate Doda) on the basis of grounds of detention without application of mind and without considering the material before him, which are stale, irrelevant and insufficient to reach a conclusion of detaining the petitioner under draconian and notorious Public Safety Act 1978 as the detention order was communicated to the petitioner on 01-07-2022 in Jail vide communication No. 38-44/DM/DODA/PSA/2022 dated 28-06-2022.

Per-contra, Ld. GA has vehemently argued, that there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention, the procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of Public Safety Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case, the detenue has been furnished all the material as was required, and was also made aware of his right to make representation to the detaining authority against his detention. It is pertinent to mention here, that the detention record viz; the dossier depicts that petitioner has been indicted in cases FIR Nos. 225/2012, 233/2014, 127/2016, 253/2016, 94/2017, 194/2018 & 39/2021 u/s 188 RPC r/w 3 Prevention of Cruelty Act. The grounds of detention (Annexure-III to the petition) depict that respondent No-3 (SSP Doda) has submitted dossier to respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Doda) vide No. Conf/PSA/2022/13512/C dated 27-06-2022 whereas without any delay on the next date on 28-06-2022 order of detention has been passed against the petitioner vide respondent No. 2‟s order No. 30/DM/DODA/PSA/2022 dated 28-06-2022 and on the same day without unnecessary delay notice has been served upon the petitioner regarding the detention order vide respondent No. 2‟s endorsement No. 38- 44/DM/DODA/PSA/2022. The detention record further depicts that SI Abhishekh Phagotra PID No.196714 of P/S Doda without delay and on the next date of 29-06-2022 has executed the detention warrant upon petitioner whereby entire material /relevant documents pertaining to the detenue i.e. copy of grounds of detention (5 Leaves), PSA warrant (01 Leaves), Dossier alongwith SSP Doda‟s letter (05 Leaves), copies of FIRs, Statements and other documents (46 Leaves) have been supplied/provided to the petitioner against proper receipt by reading in English & explaining the same to him in his own language in Urdu which he understood fully, whereby, petitioner has been informed that he may make representation to the Govt./detaining authority against the detention order if so desires. The grounds of detention 6 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 in vis-à-vis petitioner framed by respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Doda) are reproduced hereunder:-

"I, have gone through the dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police Doda vide No. Conf/PSA/2022/13512/C dated 27-06-2022 where under he has recommended your detention under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 in support of his in dossier he has submitted a detailed report of your involvement in anti-social, unlawful, illegal and criminal activities, which are summarized as under:-

You are bovine smuggler by profession and you activities are tilted more towards wrongs rather than, what is right and found you are involved in bovine smuggling incessantly and is a habitual criminal bovine smuggler. That you are so doing anti social activities which has hurt the sentiments of the particular community at large and created feeling of enmity, hatred, disharmony on the ground of religion which is likely to disturb public order in Dessa as well in District Doda. Further your activities are quite undesired in the given circumstances and has a great potential to create a big law and order problem, ripples of which may also spread in the other parts of UT.

It is pertinent to mention here that you are so deeply involved and is hell-bent to carry on this illegal business of bovine smuggling that your are figured in FIR No. 225/2012 and in spite of following, much of the water from the rivers you did not stop his activities yet you are not mend his ways.

The modus operandi of you in bovine smuggling is very organized and you are often smuggles bovine animals during night from District Doda to other Districts. The act of you is quite anti social which hurts the religious statements of a particular community.

The detailed description regarding your involvement in the criminal cases registered against you are as under:-

Some of the activities of the subject are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public law and order, which is evident from the FIRs registered against you mentioned below:-

The following cases have been registered at various police stations against you in District Doda:-

       S. No.   FIR Nos. U/S                     Remarks
           1.   225/2012 188      RPC,     03    The case concluded as challan produced

Prevention of Cruelty in the court of law vide challan No. Act P/S Doda 166/2012 dated 06.11.2012

2. 233/2014 188 RPC, 03 The case concluded as challan produced Prevention of Cruelty in the court of law vide challan No. Act P/S Doda 239/2014 dated 30.12.2014

3. 127/2016 188 RPC, 03 The case concluded as challan produced Prevention of Cruelty in the court of law vide challan No. Act P/S Doda 142/2016 dated 30.09.2016

4. 253/2016 188 RPC, 03 The case concluded as challan produced Prevention of Cruelty in the court of law vide challan No. Act P/S Doda 202/2016 dated 30.12.2016

5. 94/2017 188 RPC, 03 The case concluded as challan produced Prevention of Cruelty in the court of law vide challan No. Act P/S Doda 140/2017 dated 05.10.2017

6. 192/2018 188 RPC, 03 The case concluded as challan produced Prevention of Cruelty in the court of law vide challan No. Act P/S Doda 182/2018 dated 29.12.2018

7. 39/2021 188 RPC, 03 The case concluded as challan produced Prevention of Cruelty in the court of law vide challan No. 7 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 Act P/S Doda 94/2021 dated 31.08.2021 (1)FIR No. 225/2012 u/s 188 RPC, 03 PC Act P/S Doda.

As per dossier submitted by SSP Doda before me, it is crystal clear that on 12-09-2012 you alongwith your associates namely (1) Rehmatullah S/O Abdul Khaliq R/O Dandi Bhaderwah District Doda and others known for their illegal transportation of bovine smuggling and that time you alongwith other are caring 28 oxen‟s illegally via Ghat Nallah Doda towards Kashmir without any valid permission from DM Doda. In this regard the above titled case has been registered at P/S Doda and during investigation case was proved against you and challan of the case has been produced before the court of law. (2) FIR No. 233/2014 u/s 188 RPC, 03 PC Act P/S Doda As per dossier submitted by SSP Doda before me. it is crystal clear that on 13.12.2014, you alongwith your associates namely (1) Mohd. Rafiq S/O Feroz Din R/O Mehtra Ramban and others known for their illegal transportation of bovine smuggling and that time your alongwith others are caring 20 Cow's/Oxen's illegally via Neeru Pul Pul Doda towards Kashmir without any valid permission from DM Doda. In this regard, the above titled case has been registered at P/S Doda and during investigation, case was proved against you and challan of the case has been produced before the Court of law. (3)FIRNo.127/2016 u/s 188 RPC, 03 PC Act P/S Doda.

As per dossier submitted by SSP Doda before me, it is crystal clear that on 23.06.2016, you alongwith, or others, It is namely, Talib Hussain and Abdul Latief both So i Guijar R/o Manjmi Dessa A/P Susarwar taking (08) Nos. of bovine animals by foot from Bhagwah towards Kashmir via Siraj area for selling them. On this, an instant case was registered against you and your associates under Section 188 RPC, 3 PC Act at P/S Doda. After investigation, the challan has been produced before the court of law against you and your brothers.

(4) FIR No.253/2016 u/s 188 RPC, 03 PC Act P/S Doda As per dossier submitted by SSP Doda before me, it is crystal clear that on 14.11.2016, you alongwith your associates namely (1) Abdul Latief @ Guddu and others known for their illegal transportation of bovine smuggling and that time you alongwith others are caring 05 oxen's illegally via Gaddi Nallah Dessa towards Kashmir without any valid permission from DM Doda. In this regard, the above titled case has been registered at P/S Doda and during investigation, case was proved against you and challan of the case has been produced before the court of law.

(5) FIR No.94/2017 u/s 188 RPC, 03 PC Act P/S Doda As per dossier submitted by SSP Doda before me, it is crystal clear that on 06.05.2017, you along with your associate, namely, (1) Talib Hussain S/O Mohd lbrahim R/o Manjmi Dessa A/P Susanrar known for their illegal transportation of bovine smuggling and that time you alongwith your associate are caring 02 Oxen's illegally via Bhagwah area towards Kashmir without any valid permission from DM Doda. In this regard, the above titled case has been registered at P/S Doda and during investigation, case was proved against you and challan of the case has been produced before the Court of law.

(6) FIR No. 192/2018 U/S 188 RPC, 03 PC Act P/S Doda As per dossier submitted by SSP Doda before me, it is crystal clear that on 27.10.2018, you alongwith your associate namely (1) Talib 8 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 Hussain S/O Mohd. Ibrahim R/o Manjmi Dessa A/P Susarwar known for their illegal transportation of bovine smuggling and that time you and your associate are caring 13cow's/oxen's illegally via Askanda Dahr Dessa towards Kashmir without any valid permission from DM Doda. In this regard above titled case has been registered at P/S Doda and during investigation, case was proved against you and challan of the case has been produced before the court of law.

(7) FIR No. 39/2021 U/S 188 RPC, 03 PC Act P/S Doda As per dossier submitted by SSP Doda before me, it is crystal clear that on 05.03.2021, you along with your associates namely, (1) Irshad Ahmed S/O Mohd. Yousaf R/o Dhar Kastigarh alongwith others known for their illegal transportation of bovine smuggling and that time you and your associates are carine 06 cow' s/oxen's illegally via Pul Doda towards Kashmir without an valid permission from DM Doda. In this regard, the above case has been registered at p/s Doda and during investigation, case was proved against you and challan of the case has been produced before the court of law.

From the above referred facts and circumstances, it becomes crystal clear that you are indulged in vandalism and wanton activities, which can have serious consequences and have potential of hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community. You have always instrumental in creating law and order problem for the administration and your activities also the add fuel to the fire in already hyper sensitivity areas of District Doda, from the communal point of view. You are doing Anti-Social activities which not only hurts the religious sentiments of particular community but are illegal and a serious threat to the public order in District Doda. Therefore, in view the gravity, length and detrimental of your above narrated and your communal record enumerated herein above are highly prejudicial to the public order of District Doda. In the light of above grounds, which are based on the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police Doda and in view prevailing situation in District Doda, you have been considered as a potential threat to the public order in District Doda. As such, I have arrived at the conclusion that your detention under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 is absolutely necessary. You are therefore, detained under section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 for the period, to be determined by the Advisory Board." The detention record viz; grounds of detention clearly demonstrate that the petitioner is indicted in as many as in 7 FIRs for illegal transportation of bovine animals. The activities of the petitioner being anti-social not only hurt the religious sentiments of particular community, but are serious threat to public order. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the detention order has been passed by R-2 without application of mind and without considering the material placed before it, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, are legally unsustainable, repelled, discarded and rejected.

7. The next argument canvassed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner are, that the grounds of detention mentioned in the detention order are replica/verbatim copy of the dossier with interplay of some words here and there, which 9 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 exhibits that the respondent No.2 have not applied his mind properly at the time of passing of the order and as such on this count also the order impugned is bad and the same deserves to be set aside.

In WP (Crl) No. 131/2021 (Nazir Ahmad War Versus UT of J&K & Anr.) & (ii) WP (Crl) No. 151/2021 (Javid Ahmad Mir Versus UT of J&K & Anr.) relied by learned counsel for petitioner, Coordinate Benches of this Court quashed the detention orders for the reasons that the grounds of detention were nothing but verbatim reproduction of dossiers forwarded by the police to the detaining authority which in fact showed non-application of mind by the detaining authority making the detention orders illegal. I have meticulously scanned the detention recorded produced by the respondents. The dossier submitted by respondent No.3 deals with the criminal activities of the petitioner and it contains as many as 4 pages (page 34 to 37 of the petition). The grounds of detention which lay its foundation from the dossier also consist of 5 pages (Annexure-III, pages 28 to 32 of the petition) delineating the entire criminal activities of the petitioner. But to say that grounds of detention are ditto copy/verbatim of the dossier is untrue and far from reality. In the grounds of detention the criminal activities of the petitioner have been highlighted which reveal that petitioner/detenue has been indicted in case FIR Nos. 225/2012, 233/2014, 127/2016, 253/2016, 94/2017, 194/2018 &39/2021 u/s 188 RPC r/w 3 Prevention of Cruelty Act of P/S Doda for the allegations that he is habitual smuggler of bovine animals thereby creating feeling of enmity, hatred, disharmony and has potential threat to public order. In Sarabjeet Singh Mokha case (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, Hon‟ble Supreme Court quashed the order of detention on two grounds viz; firstly, the unexplained delay on part of state Govt. in deciding the representation filed by the petitioner and secondly, failure of Central/State Govt. to communicate the rejection in a timely manner. Ratio of the judgment (Supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, detention order has been passed on 28-06-2022 and executed on 29-06- 2022 whereafter the case was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion which on 03-08-2022 observed that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenue, thereafter, without unnecessary delay, on 12-08-2022 Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir by its order issued by Financial Commissioner ACS Home bearing No. Home/PB-VI/868 of 2022 dated 12-08-2022 detained the petitioner for a period of 3 months at the first instance and lodged him in Kot 10 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 Bhalwal Jail Jammu. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention are ditto copy/verbatim of the dossier are legally misplaced, discarded and rejected.

8. Even otherwise it is settled law that this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution has limited scope to scrutinizing whether detention order has been passed on the material placed before it, it cannot go further and examine sufficiency of material. In the above background, Constitutional Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya (AIR 1951 SC 157) in para 5 of the judgment observed as under:-

5. It has to be borne in mind that the legislation in question is not an emergency legislation. The powers of preventive detention under this Act of 1950 are in addition to those contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, where preventive detention is followed by an inquiry or trial. By its very nature, preventive detention is aimed at preventing the commission of an offence or preventing the detained person from achieving a certain end. The authority making the order therefore cannot always be in possession of full detailed information when it passes the order and the information in its possession may fall far short of legal proof of any specific offence, although it may be indicative of a strong probability of the impending commission of a prejudicial act. Section a of the Preventive Detention Act therefore requires that the Central Government or the State Government must be satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (1) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (2) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (8) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community ......... it is necessary So to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. According to the wording of section 3, therefore, before the Government can pass an order of preventive detention it must be satisfied with respect to the individual person that his activities are directed against one or other of the three objects mentioned in the section, and that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in such a manner. The wording of the section thus clearly shows that it is the satisfaction of the Central Government or the State Government on the point which alone is necessary to be established. It is significant that while the objects intended to be defeated are mentioned, the different methods, acts or omissions by which that can be done are not mentioned, as it is not humanly possible to give such an exhaustive list. The satisfaction of the Government however must be based on some grounds.

9. In the light of aforesaid position of law settled by the Six-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, way back in the year 1951, the scope of looking into the manner in which subjective satisfaction is arrived at by detaining authority, is limited. This Court, while examining the material, which is made 11 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 basis of subjective satisfaction of detaining authority, would not act as a „court of appeal' and find fault with the satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of material before detaining authority, another view was possible. Even in Abdul Latief Abdul Wahab Sheikh V. B.K. Jha, 1987 (2) SCC 22 Hon‟ble Supreme Court has categorically held that it is only procedural requirements, which are the only safeguards available to detenue, that is to be followed and complied with as the Court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority. In the case in hand, as discussed above, the procedural requirements have been followed and complied with by respondents in letter and spirit. Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand, and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand. Security of State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community, prevention of smuggling and black- marketing activities, etc. etc. demand effective safeguards in the larger interests of sustenance of a peaceful democratic way of life. In 1982 Legal Eagle SC 108 [Ashok Kumar Versus Delhi Administration and others] relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent Hon‟ble Supreme Court held, that it is the potentiality of the act to disturb the tempo of the life of community which makes it prejudicial to the security of state and even the supply of grounds of detention late by two days do not by itself render the detention invalid. Ratio of the judgment applies to the facts of the case in hand, as in the case in hand, the criminal activities of petitioner are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is no delay in supplying the grounds of detention to the petitioner/detenue as on 27-06-2022 respondent No.3 SSP Doda has supplied material viz; copy of FIR & dossier alongwith connecting document to respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Doda) who on the next day on 28-06-2022 without delay has issued the detention order and on the next day on 29-06-2022 SI Abhishekh Phagotra PID No.196714 of P/S Doda has executed the detention warrant upon the petitioner.

10.Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumra Goyal v. Union of India and 12 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 others, (2005) 8 SCC 276 and ingeminated by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, AIR 2019 SC 3428, has held, that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent antisocial and subversive elements from imperiling welfare of the country or security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so. To sum up, a law of preventive detention is not invalid because it prescribes no objective standard for ordering preventive detention, and leaves the matter to subjective satisfaction of the Executive. The reason for this view is that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive and is resorted to with a view to prevent a person from committing activities regarded as prejudicial to certain objects that the law of preventive detention seeks to prescribe. Preventive detention is, thus, based on suspicion or anticipation and not on proof. The responsibility for security of State, or maintenance of public order, or essential services and supplies, rests on the Executive and it must, therefore, have necessary powers to order preventive detention. Having said that, subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority to detain a person or not, is not open to objective assessment by a Court. A Court is not a proper forum to scrutinize the merits of administrative decision to detain a person. The Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the authority concerned and decide whether its satisfaction was reasonable or proper, or whether in the circumstances of the matter, the person concerned should have been detained or not. It is often said and held that the Courts do not even go into the question whether the facts mentioned in grounds of detention are correct or false. The reason for the rule is that to decide this, evidence may have to be taken by the courts and that is not the policy of law of preventive detention. This matter lies within the competence of Advisory Board. While saying so, this Court does not sit in appeal over decision of detaining authority and cannot substitute its own opinion over that of detaining authority when grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant.

13 WP(Crl) No. 29/2022

11. It is apposite to mention that our Constitution undoubtedly guarantees various freedoms and personal liberty to all persons in our Republic. However, it should be kept in mind by one and all that the constitutional guarantee of such freedoms and liberty is not meant to be abused and misused so as to endanger and threaten the very foundation of the pattern of our free society in which the guaranteed democratic freedom and personal liberty is designed to grow and flourish. The larger interests of our multi-religious nation as a whole and the cause of preserving and securing to every person the guaranteed freedom peremptorily demand reasonable restrictions on the prejudicial activities of individuals which undoubtedly jeopardize the rightful freedoms of the rest of the society. Main object of Preventive Detention is the security of a State, maintenance of public order and of supplies and services essential to the community demand, effective safeguards in the larger interest of sustenance of peaceful democratic way of life. In the case in hand, as per the grounds of detention, petitioner/detenue is a bovine smuggler by profession and his criminal activities and indictment in as many as 7 FIRs viz; FIR Nos. 225/2012, 233/2014, 127/2016, 253/2016, 94/2017, 194/2018 & 39/2021 u/s 188 RPC r/w 3 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of P/S Doda clearly demonstrate that he is a habitual bovine smuggler and his activities are anti- social which not only hurt the sentiments of particular community but have potential to disturb the public order. Therefore, in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he has been rightly detained under Public Safety Act.

12. For the foregoing discussion, the petition sans any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed and disposed of.

13. Detention record be returned to the learned GA for the respondents.

(Mohan Lal) Judge Jammu:

30.01.2023 Vijay Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court