Justice M.A. Chowdhary, while quashing a preventive detention order passed under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, observed that preventive detention is an exceptional measure which cannot be invoked merely because a person is alleged to have committed penal offences. The Court held,

“Merely because the petitioner is alleged to be involved in the offences relating to transportation of bovine animals without permission is not a sufficient ground to invoke the remedy of preventive detention, particularly, in a case where the detaining authority has not recorded any subjective satisfaction that such activities of the detenue have either resulted or have the potential to lead to public outrage.”

The Court was hearing a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by one Sabeer Ahmed through his brother, challenging a detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Rajouri under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act. The detention order was founded upon three FIRs registered against the detenue of which one was alleged for offences under Section 188 IPC and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The other two FIRs, alleged offences under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The allegation in these cases was that the detenue had been transporting bovine animals without obtaining valid permission from the District Magistrate, in violation of the relevant notification. The District Magistrate, however, treated the repeated involvement of the detenue in such cases as indicative of continuous criminal and anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The respondents argued that his involvement in three cases demonstrated a criminal propensity and disregard for law and that his activities had a direct bearing on public order.

Adjudicating the matter the Court relied upon an earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench in Bhupinder Kumar alias Pappu Krishan Lal v. UT of J&K & Ors., AIR Online 2025 J&K 499, which had considered similar allegations concerning transportation of bovine animals. The Court noted that transportation of bovine animals without permission does not, ipso facto, amount to bovine smuggling.

Referring to the earlier judgment, the Court observed that a person transporting his own or purchased animals from one district to another without permission may have disobeyed an order issued by a public authority, but such conduct cannot automatically be characterised as “bovine smuggling”. Such an offence can be dealt with under the ordinary penal law.

The Court further reiterated that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for investigation and prosecution of ordinary penal offences. The Court emphasised the distinction between law and order and public order, observing that preventive detention is intended for situations involving a higher degree of disturbance to public order.

The Court referred to the earlier Coordinate Bench ruling which had cautioned that preventive detention, being a serious invasion of personal liberty, should be reserved for exceptionally grave situations involving prejudicial activities affecting public order or national security. The earlier ruling, as noticed by the Court, stated that public order represents a situation beyond an ordinary failure of law and order and that the State should not resort to preventive detention merely instead of investigating and prosecuting penal offences.

Applying this principle, Justice Chowdhary held that the material placed before him did not justify the invocation of preventive detention merely on account of the allegations relating to transportation of bovine animals without permission.

A significant factor weighing with the Court was the absence of any specific satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority that the alleged activities had either caused public outrage or had the potential to generate such a situation.

The Court held that in the absence of such material or satisfaction, the alleged offences could not be elevated from ordinary law-and-order issues to activities warranting preventive detention under the PSA. The Court accordingly concluded, “The impugned order of detention is, therefore, unsustainable in law on this ground.”

In view of the above findings, the Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition and quashed the detention order. It directed that the detenue, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Case Title:Sabeer Ahmed v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 327

Appearances:

Petitioner – Mr. Nitin Mohan, Advocate

Respondents – Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment