Police Resorted To Public Safety Act For 'Perverted Detention', To Outmanoeuvre Courts: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order

While quashing the detention order, the Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court observed that Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu and the District Magistrate, Jammu had resorted to a dubious exercise of authority and jurisdiction at their respective ends to 'pounce upon' the personal liberty of the petitioner by subjecting him to preventive detention.The said observation was made by the High Court after discovering from the detention record that the first dossier that was submitted by the Sr. Superintendent Of Police (SSP), Jammu was returned by the District Magistrate, Jammu due to insufficient material for passing the order of the preventive detention.It was observed that later, the revised dossier, on the basis of which the detention order was passed, had additionally alleged the commission of the offence of cheating and that the petitioner had a number of bank accounts in his own name. This, the court said, could not be considered so adverse an input against the Petitioner to be deemed as prejudicial to the “Security of the State.” A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed that "The case in hand is an exhibit of a preventive detention measure under the aegis of J&K Public Safety Act being resorted to as a “perverted detention” by the District Police and District Executive Magistracy as an extra legal expedience not only to curb fundamental right to personal liberty of the petitioner but also a stratagem to outmaneuver the constitutional and criminal courts indulgence in the matter of granting bail in favour of the petitioner thereby to show off that the fiat of Police and dictate Executive outruns the writ and commands of the constitutional and criminal court."High Court also noted that none of the SHOs from either of the police stations where the FIR was registered against the Petitioner had recommended processing the case for preventive detention in view of such activities and to that extent, the revised dossier was “self-generated.'BackgroundIn this case, two FIRs were initially registered against the Petitioner under the Official Secrets Act,1923, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Information Technology Act, 2000 for having published confidential information relating to security cover relatable to high-profile persons, several bureaucrats and politicians in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir. In both of these FIRs the Petitioner was released on Bail by the court. These two FIRs formed the basis of submitting a first dossier by Sr. Superintendent Of Police (SSP), Jammu to the District Magistrate, Jammu for the order of preventive detention. After the return of the first dossier, a revised dossier was submitted with the same material with additional material that another FIR was registered against the Applicant for cheating and having access to more than 100 bank accounts in his name, after which a Detention order was passed.Notably, even with respect to the third FIR, the Petitioner was released on bail. The petitioner then filed two separate representations before the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, UT of J&K. However, both of these representations were rejected without informing the outcome of these representations to the Petitioner. The High Court relied on Harish Pahwa Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & others,” (1981) AIR (SC) 1126 where the court held that it is the duty of the State to proceed to decide detenue's representation with utmost expedition meaning thereby that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation of a detenue is received and dealt with continuously until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenue.The court observed that the petitioner's ultimate arrest and detention is a pointer to the fact that the petitioner was being eyed upon to be a 'witch-hunt' by the authorities and that is exhibited from the aforesaid sequence.Accordingly, the court held that preventive detention of the petitioner is malice afflicted and illegal, warranting immediate quashment and directed release of the Petitioner with immediate effect.APPEARANCE:G. S. Thakur, Advocate for PetitionerMr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG for RespondentCase-title: Tarun Bahl vs UT of J&K, 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 20Click Here To Read/Download Order

Police Resorted To Public Safety Act For 'Perverted Detention', To Outmanoeuvre Courts: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order

Aleem Syeed

Tags