Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 6: In a stern message against repeat bovine smuggling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has upheld the preventive detention of two alleged habitual offenders under the Public Safety Act, ruling that grant of bail in criminal cases cannot come to the rescue of persons whose activities are found prejudicial to public order. Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while dismissing two separate habeas corpus petitions, held that preventive detention is not meant to punish for past acts alone but to prevent future conduct likely to disturb public tranquillity and communal harmony.
One of the petitions was filed by Shokat Ali, 21, a resident of Ghatti, Kathua, who had challenged detention order No. PSA 168 of 2025 dated June 25, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua. As per the record placed before the Court, the police dossier referred to four FIRs and projected the detenue as repeatedly involved in bovine smuggling and theft-related activities. The petitioner argued that he was illiterate, understood only Gojri, had not been supplied the complete material relied upon by the detaining authority, had already been enlarged on bail, and that the detention order even mentioned another person's name in one part. The High Court, however, found that the relevant material had been furnished and explained to him, his representation had been considered, and the wrong name in one portion of the order was only a typographical mistake later corrected through a corrigendum, which did not vitiate the detention.
In the second case, the Court dismissed the plea of Shabir Shah, 22, linked to Rajpura, Samba, who had challenged detention order No. 04/PSA of 2025 dated May 29, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Samba. The authorities relied on five criminal cases, including offences under the PCA Act, PDPP Act and Animal Transport Act, and described the detenue as a habitual bovine smuggler whose activities had the potential to inflame communal tension and disrupt public order. The petitioner questioned the detention on the ground that it was mechanical, that he had already secured bail, and that constitutional safeguards were not followed. Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that preventive detention and ordinary criminal prosecution operate in different spheres, and that detention can validly be ordered where repeated criminal conduct creates a reasonable apprehension of future prejudicial activity.
The High Court observed that repeated involvement in bovine smuggling cases showed that ordinary law had failed to deter the detenues and that the authorities were justified in invoking the PSA to prevent further acts affecting public peace. The Court also noted in the Samba case that out of five criminal cases, the detenue had confessed guilt in three and had been convicted and fined by competent courts. With these findings, the Court upheld both detention orders and dismissed the petitions.
(JNF) |
