Authorities Chose Shortcut Over Bail Cancellation: J&K And Ladakh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order

A Single Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani allowed a petition under Article 226 for quashing of a detention order (‘impugned order’) passed by the District Magistrate (‘Detaining Authority’), and held that “Respondents have adopted a shortcut method for detaining the petitioner under preventive law instead of taking recourse to ordinary law in connection with the offences alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner .”

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Mohammad Ibranim Wani, while Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner had been detained under Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (‘the Act’). An FIR was filed against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 17,18,19,23,38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, based on receipt of information that the Petitioner was allegedly involved in criminal conspiracy and further that he would provide logistical support to terrorists.

The Petitioner was granted bail subject to certain conditions, failing which the bail so granted to him would stand cancelled. However, the Respondents alleged that post release, he continued to engage in alleged terrorist activities, and instead of cancellation of the bail, the Detaining Authority detained the Petitioner under provisions of the Act.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court remarked that the authorities instead of seeking cancellation of bail chose to resort to a ‘shortcut’ method and detain the petitioner under preventive detention law, based on vague grounds. The Court referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of T. Nadu Tr. Sec. to Govt. & Anr (2011), where it has been held that if ordinary penal statutes can deal with the situation, recourse to the detention law will be illegal.

The Bench noted that after the Petitioner was granted bail, proceedings under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) had been initiated by the concerned police station, the detention records presented did not indicate that such proceedings were actually pursued before the competent authority.

The Court observed, “The aforesaid position obtaining in the matter manifestly tends to show that the Respondents have adopted a shortcut method and procedure for detaining the Petitioner under preventive law instead of taking recourse to ordinary law in connection with the offences alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner and in respect of which the Petitioner is stated to be facing trial before the court below.”

With regard to the Detaining authority, the Court observed that the grounds on which the impugned order was passed failed to provide specific details, including the nature of the alleged activities, relevant dates, and the individuals involved, which were cited to justify the Petitioner’s preventive detention.

The Court remarked, “The grounds of detention ex-facie are vague and cryptic which runs contrary to the object of the provisions of the Act rendering the petitioner incapable of making an effective representation against his detention.”

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, with direction to the Respondents to release the Petitioner from preventive detention.

Cause Title: Manzoor Ahmad Wani v. Union Territory of J&K & Anr. (HCP No. 68/2024)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Mohammad Ibranim Wani

Respondents: Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG and Advocate Nowbahar Khan