Bail In Criminal Cases No Justification For Preventive Detention: J&K High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Ex-SMC Corporator

The court held that the mere fact that Renzu had been granted bail in multiple criminal cases did not justify his detention under preventive law. The court further emphasized that preventive detention laws cannot be used as a substitute for handling cases under regular criminal law.

In allowing the plea of Renzu against his preventive detention a bench of Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M A Chowdhary observed,

“The offences as alleged in the FIRs are not of the nature that ordinary criminal law cannot deal with those offences and the fact that he was admitted to bail in these FIRs is no ground to detain him under preventive law and, thus, impugned detention of the detenue is unsustainable under law. In the present case, the ordinary law of land was sufficient to deal with the situation”

The case stemmed from a preventive detention order passed on October 4, 2023, by the District Magistrate of Srinagar, detaining Aqib Ahmad Renzu under the Public Safety Act (PSA). Renzu, a former Corporator of SMC, Brein Nishat, was facing multiple criminal charges and was granted bail in seven FIRs dating from 2013 to 2023. Despite this, authorities argued that his detention was necessary to prevent him from engaging in activities detrimental to public order.

Renzu challenged his detention, filing a Habeas Corpus Petition, which was dismissed by a Single Bench of the High Court on June 7, 2024. He then appealed this decision, leading to the current proceedings.

Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shuja ul Haq, argued that the detention order lacked legal justification. He claimed that the detaining authorities had failed to provide Renzu with the materials relied upon for his detention, violating his right to make an effective representation. This, he contended, was in direct conflict with Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and to contest it.

Furthermore, Mr. Haq contended that Renzu was a staunch nationalist who had worked tirelessly for the welfare of Kashmir, participating in mainstream politics and helping dissuade local youth from anti-national activities. He characterized the detention order as motivated by ill-will and political rivalry, rather than legitimate concerns about public safety.

Representing the Union Territory, Government Advocate Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah argued that the detention order was legally sound and free from any malice. He further submitted that Renzu's activities posed a threat to public order, justifying his detention under preventive law.

Upon reviewing the materials, the court found that the grounds of detention were vague and lacked specificity. It noted that while Renzu had been accused of engaging in unlawful and anti-social activities, the detention order failed to provide concrete evidence linking him to activities that would disturb public order.

“.. a general and vague allegation has been made against the appellant-detenue that he had been successful in carrying out nefarious plans in Srinagar city and also a case for the offence of sexual harassment.. The grounds of detention, however, do not detail as to how and where the detenue was provoking the youth and what are those illegal activities, which has been alleged against the appellant detenu”,the bench remarked.

Pointing out the violation of constitutional safeguards in the instant case the court also noted the failure to provide Renzu with the materials relied upon for his detention which constituted a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

The detaining authorities were obligated to supply the grounds and supporting documents to enable him to make a meaningful representation, the court said while relying on precedents such as Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi and Thahira Haris v. Government of Karnataka, which affirmed the necessity of furnishing all relevant materials to detainees.

One of the key observations by the court was that the mere fact that Renzu had been admitted to bail in criminal cases did not justify his preventive detention. The court cited the Supreme Court case of Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, emphasizing that preventive detention should not be used to undermine the bail orders of criminal courts.

In its ruling, the court underscored that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure, meant to prevent imminent threats to public order. In this case, the court found no compelling evidence that Renzu's activities posed such a threat.

“.. there is no allegation against the appellant detenu regarding his activities effecting public at large. The allegations may amount to law and order issue but he cannot be held to have disturbed the public order”, the court recorded.

In alignment with these observations the court set aside the Single Judge's order and quashed the detention order issued by the District Magistrate. It ordered Renzu's immediate release, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.

Case Title: Aqib Ahmad Renzu Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 259

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment