Habeas corpus petition challenging a PITNDPS preventive detention order passed on the basis of three FIRs. The High Court held that three incidents sufficed for subjective satisfaction, the delay in execution was small, all material was supplied to the detenue, and declined to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
HCP No. 58/2024
Pronounced on: 14.10.2024
Rohit Dutta
…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:Mr. Prince Khanna, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and others
…..Respondent(s)
Through:Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
HCP No. 58/2024
Page 2 of 7
HCP No. 58/2024
Page 3 of 7
the Supreme Court has held that there is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Public Safety Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one, case a person is
HCP No. 58/2024
Page 4 of 7
punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in the Act. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The, basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one, case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent.”
11. In Khudiram Das V. State of West Bengal and others, (1975) 2
SCR 832, It was held that:-
“………..The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. Since every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof.…………”
another vs. Nabila and another, (2015) 12 SCC 127 , it has been held that
one act may not be sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction for detaining him. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
“Indisputably, the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive, but only preventive. In case of preventive detention no offence is to be proved
HCP No. 58/2024
Page 5 of 7
nor is any charge formulated. The justification of such detention is suspicion and reasonability and there is no criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence…”
HCP No. 58/2024
Page 6 of 7
welfare of the people and the young generation is affected by it. The detaining authority, after recording its subjective satisfaction, has passed the impugned order of detention.
HCP No. 58/2024
Page 7 of 7
impugned order of detention, thus, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
respondents by the Registry forthwith.
(SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE
Srinagar:
14.10.2024 Vishal
Michal Sharma 2024.10.15 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detention order under Section 3 PITNDPS Act was vitiated by non-supply of material, delay in execution, or failure to inform the detenue of his right to represent to the detaining authorit
Whether detention based on three FIRs in which the detenue had been granted bail was sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haradhan Saha v. State of West BengalRelied on¶10
(1975) 3 SCC 198 · Who else cites this
Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal and othersRelied on¶11
(1975) 2 SCR 832 · Who else cites this
Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) and another vs. Nabila and anotherRelied on¶12
(2015) 12 SCC 127 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rohit Dutta
UT of J&K and others
Sindhu Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
