Preventive Detention Can't Be Used As Substitute For Punitive Detention Which Follows Regular Course Of Law: J&K High Court
Quashing the preventive detention orders against an individual accused of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme targeting students the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has said that alleged offences of cheating under Sec 420 read with section 120-B of the IPC cannot be read to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti clarified that at best it could be...
Quashing the preventive detention orders against an individual accused of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme targeting students the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has said that alleged offences of cheating under Sec 420 read with section 120-B of the IPC cannot be read to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti clarified that at best it could be a law and order problem for which routine criminal law is meant to procure the offender to law and get him convicted and punished accordingly.
It was held that the laws of preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for punitive detention.
The case pertained to allegations of luring students by promising fake question papers for the B.Sc. Nursing Exams conducted by the J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examinations in 2023 and extracting substantial sums of money from them and their families.
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Mohammd Ashraf Wani, Advocate, sought relief in the form of a writ of habeas corpus, aiming to annul the preventive detention imposed upon him and restore his personal liberty.
On the other side, the respondents, represented by Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA, defended the detention orders issued by the District Magistrate Pulwama based on recommendations from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora.
After considering the rival contentions Justice Bharti observed that the grounds of detention mirrored the police dossier and solely relied on the FIR against the petitioner. The court noted that the detention order was issued despite the petitioner being granted bail in the criminal case.
Highlighted the distinction between "public order" and "law and order" established by the Supreme Court in cases like Ayya vs. State of UP and K.K. Saravana Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu the court emphasized that the alleged crime pertains to law and order, and preventive detention cannot be a substitute for a criminal trial.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the detention order was "unwarranted" and violated the petitioner's personal liberty. He ordered the immediate release of the petitioner from jail.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Wani Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 49
Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Mohammd Ashraf Wani,