The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a detention order against a man who was booked for his alleged involvement in a series of FIRs registered against him for livestock/cattle theft. The High Court reiterated that the breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder.

The High Court was considering a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment whereby the writ court dismissed the same while upholding the detention order passed by the District Magistrate.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani held, “There is a market difference between disturbance relatable to “law and order” and disturbances caused to “public order”. It is well settled that breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder”, it added.

“We have no reason to disbelieve that the repeated incidents of night house trespass and cattle stealing by the appellant/detenue would have sent a shocking message to the concerned habitations. The cattle/sheep are generally being reared by the common villagers who depend for their livelihood on such cattle and, as such, the worries of victims of the said incidents cannot be lost sight of. The prosecution wing of the Police Department entrusted with prosecution of the criminal cases in the Courts of Law are expected to shoulder their responsibility of bringing the repeated criminal activities of an accused before the Court during the hearing of bail matters”, it added.

Advocate Parvaiz Amin Wani represented the Petitioner while Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadri represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant came to be detained by the Detaining Authority in exercise of its powers under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, (PSA) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Aggrieved by the detention order, the appellant/detenue assailed the same before the High Court which, however, came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment was assailed in this Intra-Court Appeal on the ground that the appellant-detenue was detained on the ground of his alleged involvement in a series of FIRs registered against him for livestock/cattle theft which did not amount to public disorder as alleged.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the criminal acts of the appellant/detenue led to the registration of a series of case FIRs and subsequent culmination into final reports/chargesheets in terms of the provisions of Section 193 BNSS, did amount to infraction of law and order by falling within the definitions of the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 BNS, yet the same did not imply the implication of disturbing the “social order”.

According to the Bench, the alleged actions of the appellant/detenue amounted to infraction of laws for which legal mechanism in place was already pressed into service but the invocation of the provisions of the PSA to detain the appellant rather than to pursue the prosecution against him appeared to be an unjustified exercise and abuse of process of law. “Under these circumstances the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority becomes explicit. It is settled position that a detention order suffering from non-application of mind by the detaining authority cannot sustain under law”, it further stated.

The Bench was of the view that the ordinary criminal law and order machinery was sufficient to deal with the appellant/detenue. “The character of the accused and his antecedents is of predominant consideration while considering the bail application on his behalf in a criminal case. It is expected that criminal courts before which the cases against the appellant/detenue are pending trial will consider such governing principles while considering any application for bail or cancellation of bail”, the Bench observed.

Thus, setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench quashed the detention order with the direction to release the detenue forthwith.

Cause Title: Tariq Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of J and K (Case No.: LPA No. 254/2026 in HCP No. 21/2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Parvaiz Amin Wani

Respondent: Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadri, Assisting Counsel Maha Majeed

Click here to read/download Order


Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.