Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 1: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of Anwar Jan alias Anwar Phamda, observing that merely because a person is facing criminal prosecution in several FIRs, the detaining authority is not barred from invoking preventive detention if material shows threat to public order.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Anwar Jan challenging detention order No. 32/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated December 1, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, under the J&K Public Safety Act.
The petitioner had contended that the detention order was illegal, based on false and baseless grounds, and that the material relied upon by the detaining authority was not properly supplied or translated. It was also argued that since the detenue was already facing prosecution in substantive offences, there were no compelling reasons to detain him under preventive detention law.
The High Court, however, rejected the contentions and observed that the detention record showed that the warrant was executed on December 19, 2025, and on the same day the grounds of detention and relevant material were furnished to the detenue. The court also noted that the contents were explained to him in Urdu, a language which he understood.
The court further observed that the petitioner had been found involved in several FIRs over the years, including cases relating to attempt to murder, dacoity, rioting, bovine smuggling, assault, cheating and criminal intimidation. It held that the cases disclosed a continuing pattern of intimidation of the public and that the inference of widespread fear could not be termed without foundation.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the High Court held that preventive detention can be ordered before, during or even without prosecution, provided there is material to show that the person is a threat to public order.
Justice Dhar ruled that there was "more than sufficient material" before the detaining authority to conclude that the activities of the petitioner were of such nature as would endanger public peace and order.
Finding no ground to interfere with the PSA order, the court dismissed the petition. Senior Advocate M. A. Goni with Advocate Tanzeela appeared for the petitioner, while GA Ilyas Nazir Laway represented the UT. (JNF) |
