High Court says bail does not bar preventive detention under PSA

15/07/2026

JAMMU, Jul 14: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the grant of bail in a criminal case does not bar the authorities from placing an accused under preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) if his activities are found to be prejudicial to the maint-enance of public order.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary made the observation while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammad Rizwan of Gurian, Kishtwar, through his father Altaf Hussain, challenging his detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Kishtwar, on July 21, 2025, under Section 8(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Tayyab Javed Qureshi argued that the detention order had not been approved or confirmed by the Government within the statutory period. He also contended that the detainee had not been supplied the complete material relied upon by the detaining authority, the documents were not explained in a language understood by him, and he had not been informed of his right to make a representation against the detention order.
The petitioner further submitted that since the detainee had already been granted bail in FIR No. 05/2025, the authorities could not subsequently invoke preventive detention under the PSA.
Opposing the plea, Govern-ment Advocate Adarsh Bhagat submitted that the detention order had been passed after due consideration of the police dossier and other material placed before the District Magistrate.
After examining the detention record, the High Court found that the order dated July 21, 2025, had been approved by the Home Department on July 24, 2025, and confirmed on August 18, 2025, rejecting the petitioner's contention regarding delay.
The court also noted that the detainee had been supplied 99 leaves containing the grounds of detention and all the material relied upon by the detaining authority. It observed that the contents of the detention order had been explained to him in Urdu and Kashmiri, languages understood by him, and that he had acknowledged receipt of the documents.
The Bench further held that the execution report established that the detainee had been informed of his right to make a representation against the detention order.
Rejecting the argument based on the grant of bail, Justice Chowdhary observed that preventive detention and criminal prosecution operate in different fields and that the grant of bail or even acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the competent authority from ordering preventive detention if the individual's activities are considered prejudicial to public order or the security of the State.
The court noted that the detaining authority had taken into account the bail order while arriving at its subjective satisfaction and, therefore, the detention could not be invalidated on that ground alone.
It also observed that four FIRs-Nos. 218/2022, 100/2024, 05/2025 and 20/2025-had been registered against the detainee in connection with alleged theft, burglary and other anti-social activities, which, according to the detaining authority, had created fear among local residents and the business community in Kishtwar.
Holding that the scope of judicial review over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is limited and finding no procedural irregularity or illegality in the detention process, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the PSA detention order.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty