The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that preventive detention public order measures remain valid even when criminal cases against a detenue are pending, provided the material on record reasonably shows that the detenue poses a threat to public order. The Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order issued under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA).
Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment in Anwar Jan (Choudhhary) v. UT of J&K and Others, HCP No. 1/2026. The Court reserved the matter on June 4, 2026, pronounced the judgment on June 30, 2026, and uploaded it on July 1, 2026.
Petitioner Challenges PSA Detention
The petitioner, Anwar Jan @ Anwar Phamda, challenged Detention Order No. 32/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated December 1, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag.
He argued that the detention order rested on false and baseless allegations. According to him, the grounds relied on assumptions rather than credible material.
The petitioner also submitted that authorities ignored the fact that he had secured bail in FIR No. 55/2025 registered at Police Station Kokernag, even though the detention order referred to that FIR.
Alleged Procedural Violations
The petitioner further argued that the authorities delayed the execution of the detention order.
He also claimed they failed to supply all the documents forming the basis of his detention along with translated copies. Additionally, he contended that preventive detention was unnecessary because he already faced prosecution in substantive criminal cases.
According to the petitioner, the detention grounds merely reproduced the police dossier, demonstrating non-application of mind.
State Defends the Detention
The respondents submitted that preventive detention aims to prevent future activities prejudicial to public order rather than punish past conduct.
They asserted that they complied with every statutory and constitutional safeguard. They also maintained that the petitioner had engaged in several criminal cases, making preventive detention necessary.
The State further informed the Court that officials supplied all relied-upon documents to the detenue. They also read over and explained the contents to him. Moreover, authorities informed him of his right to submit a representation before both the Government and the detaining authority.
Court Rejects Delay Argument
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding delay in supplying the detention grounds.
Justice Dhar noted that authorities issued the detention order on December 1, 2025, but executed the warrant only on December 19, 2025. On that very day, they supplied the detention grounds and supporting material.
Therefore, the Court held that the respondents had no obligation to furnish the documents before executing the warrant.
Court Finds Documents Properly Explained
The Court found that officials supplied the petitioner with:
- Grounds of detention comprising 4 leaves
- Warrant of detention comprising 1 leaf
- Notice of detention, dossier, and supporting documents comprising 77 leaves
The petitioner signed a receipt on December 19, 2025 acknowledging receipt of these documents.
The Court also relied on the Executing Officer’s report stating that officials read the documents in English and explained them in Urdu, which the petitioner fully understood.
Additionally, the Court referred to the Executing Officer’s affidavit dated December 22, 2025, confirming that officials explained the documents in Urdu in the presence of the Superintendent of District Jail, Bhaderwah.
Court Reviews Criminal History
The Court examined the petitioner’s previous preventive detention history.
It noted that authorities had earlier detained him under Order No. 06/PSA/2018 dated October 8, 2018, issued by the District Magistrate, Samba. The High Court later quashed that detention in HCP No. 11/2019 through its judgment dated April 22, 2018.
The Court also noted another detention order, No. 02/PSA/2023 dated January 3, 2023, issued by the District Magistrate, Samba. However, the High Court stayed its execution on February 20, 2023, in WP(C) No. 352/2023.
Multiple FIRs Considered
The detention record referred to several criminal cases against the petitioner.
These included:
- FIR No. 201/2015 – Police Station Samba
- FIR No. 256/2015 – Police Station Nagrota
- FIR No. 100/2017 – Police Station Nagrota
- FIR No. 45/2021 – Police Station Larnoo
- FIR No. 60/2021 – Police Station Larnoo
- FIR No. 28/2021 – Police Station Larnoo
The Court also noted seven bovine smuggling cases registered in District Ramban, namely FIR Nos. 126/2022, 127/2022, 128/2022, 129/2022, 132/2022, 134/2022, and 137/2022.
Additionally, the grounds referred to:
- FIR No. 55/2025 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), and 351(2) of the BNS
- FIR No. 121/2025 under Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), and 309(4) of the BNS
Both FIRs were registered at Police Station Kokernag.
Court Finds Threat to Public Order
Justice Dhar observed that the detaining authority had assessed the petitioner’s conduct and concluded that his continued criminal activities threatened public order.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s alleged involvement in at least ten criminal cases over the previous three years indicated habitual criminality.
It also observed that the allegations included offences such as attempt to murder, dacoity, rioting, bovine smuggling, cheating, assault, and criminal intimidation.
According to the Court, this pattern justified the detaining authority’s conclusion that the petitioner’s activities created widespread public fear.
Supreme Court Precedents Applied
The High Court relied on Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 198, where the Supreme Court held that preventive detention operates independently of criminal prosecution.
It also relied on Naresh Kumar Goel v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 276, and Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019) 20 SCC 609, which reaffirmed the same principle.
Pending Criminal Cases Do Not Prevent Preventive Detention
The Court held that pending criminal proceedings do not bar the detaining authority from invoking preventive detention if the available material reasonably establishes a threat to public order.
Justice Dhar further observed that courts ordinarily cannot review the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction in such matters. He found sufficient material supporting the authority’s conclusion that the petitioner endangered public peace and preventive detention public order concerns justified the detention.
Petition Dismissed
Finding no illegality in the detention order, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as devoid of merit. It also directed the respondents’ counsel to take back the detention records.
