 Early Times Report
Jammu, May 30: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court uphold the detention under PSA of Swarna Devi who was allegedly involved in running sex racket.
The impugned order of detention has been passed by the Detaining Authority in the exercise of power vested in it under Section 8 (1) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The detention of the petitioner is ordered primarily on the ground that she a notorious criminal habitual of pushing young girls into forced prostitution, in that, six FIRs i.e. (i) FIR No. 01/2016 under Sections 341/323/34 RPC, (ii) FIR No. 02/2016 under Section 332/353/147 RPC, (iii) FIR No. 94/2016 under Sections 376/120-B RPC, (iv) FIR No. 88/2022 under Sections 3/4/5/7 IT Act, 382/341/323/504 IPC, (v) FIR No. 93/2022 under Sections 452/323/382/504/506 IPC and (vi) FIR No. 32/2023 under Sections 366-A/342/344/34 IPC, Section 4/6/16 of POCSO Act and Section 5/6/7/18 ITPA, stand registered in Police Stations, Bagh-e-Bahu and Channi Himmat, Jammu and final reports in respect to four FIRs have already been presented before the competent courts of law after investigation, whereas investigation with regard to two FIRs is still going on.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that 9. It is thus trite that a mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for placing an individual under preventive detention. However, the disturbance which affects the public order comes within the scope of the Act. The difference between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ is similar to the distinction between public and private crimes in the realm of criminal jurisprudence. In any case, the contravention of any law always affects law and order but before it can be said to be public order, it must affect the community and the public at large. It is thus not only the act committed by the person but the impact of such act which is the determining factor to decide about the imperative need to place such person under the preventive detention. If the criminal act of a citizen and the manner in which it is committed affects the even tempo of public life or affects the community at large, it would be an act falling within the sweep of term ‘public order’.
In the instant case the criminal activities, with which the petitioner is involved, are not only the criminal offences under various penal laws simplicitor but have the effect of affecting the community at large. There is a very serious allegation against the petitioner that she is running a sex racket and has been inducing gullible girls, sometimes even minor, to join prostitution. There are allegations that on some occasions the petitioner even forced minor girls into prostitution. It is the nature of the activities attributed to the petitioner and the manner in which these are being carried out in an organized manner that has the potential of disturbing the even tempo of life of general public, in particular, the people residing nearby.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the substantive law should have been allowed to take its course and that there was hardly any justification to put the petitioner under the preventive detention. It is true that the petitioner has been booked for commission of various offences from time to time and has, for one reason or the other, been let off on bail but that does not take away the power of the Detaining Authority to place the petitioner under preventive detention with a view to prevent her from indulging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner has not pointed out any other illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
With these observations, Court found no merit in the petition. (JNF) |
