J&K High Court Upholds PSA Detention of Man Linked to 13 FIRs, Rejects Bail-in-FIR and Translation Challenges

Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a habeas corpus petition against a PSA detention order, holding that pending criminal prosecution does not bar recourse to preventive detention where public order is threatened.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Anwar Jan, also known as Anwar Phamda, challenging his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act. Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly, found no merit in any of the three grounds pressed by senior counsel for the petitioner — alleged delay in furnishing grounds of detention, non-supply of a translated version of detention material, and the absence of compelling reasons given the existence of ongoing criminal prosecutions. The judgment, pronounced on 30 June 2026 after being reserved on 4 June 2026, confirms that a detaining authority may resort to preventive detention even where the detenue is already facing trial in substantive offences, provided sufficient material supports an inference of threat to public order.

The Detention Order and the Petition Before the Court

District Magistrate, Anantnag, issued detention order No.32/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 on 1 December 2025, placing Anwar Jan under preventive detention to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner challenged this order in HCP No.1/2026 before the High Court.

The petition raised a cluster of challenges. The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were founded on surmises and conjectures without plausible reasons, that the grounds were a verbatim copy of the dossier indicating non-application of mind by the detaining authority, that his bail in FIR No.55/2025 of P/S Kokernag had not been mentioned in the grounds despite the FIR itself being referenced there, and that procedural safeguards under the relevant laws had been violated. The petition also alleged delay in executing and communicating the detention order.

The Union Territory of J&K contested the petition through a reply affidavit, asserting that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees had been fulfilled, that the entire material relied upon had been supplied to the detenue and explained to him, and that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order given his involvement in multiple criminal cases.

Three Grounds of Challenge and the Court’s Findings on Each

Delay in furnishing grounds of detention. The detention order was passed on 1 December 2025. The grounds of detention and the underlying material were furnished to the petitioner on 19 December 2025 — a gap of 18 days. Senior counsel argued this delay vitiated the order.

Justice Dhar examined the detention record and found that the warrant of detention was itself executed only on 19 December 2025. The court held that the relevant question was not the gap between the order and the furnishing of grounds, but whether the material was provided promptly after execution of the warrant. Since both execution of the warrant and furnishing of grounds occurred on the same day, there was no infraction. The court observed that there was no occasion to furnish the material to the petitioner before the warrant was executed upon him, and accordingly rejected this ground.

Non-furnishing of a translated version. The petitioner described himself as a semi-literate person and contended that without a translation of the grounds and supporting material into a language he understood, he was disabled from making an effective representation against his detention.

The court turned to the detention record and found that on 19 December 2025, the executing officer supplied the petitioner with a copy of the grounds of detention (four leaves), the warrant of detention (one leaf), and a notice of detention along with dossier and other documents totalling 77 leaves, against an executed receipt. The executing officer’s report recorded that the contents of all documents were read over to the petitioner in English and explained in Urdu, which he fully understands. The executing officer also swore an affidavit dated 22 December 2025 in the presence of the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhaderwah, reaffirming that the contents were explained to the petitioner in Urdu. The court held the contention was not substantiated by the record.

No compelling reason for preventive detention given existing prosecution. Senior counsel pressed that the petitioner was already facing criminal prosecution for substantive offences and that preventive detention was therefore an unwarranted measure.

This required the court to examine the actual criminal history set out in the grounds of detention. The record disclosed a lengthy pattern of offending. An earlier detention order No.06/PSA/2018 dated 8 October 2018, issued by District Magistrate, Samba, had been quashed by the High Court in HCP No.11/2019. A second detention order No.02/PSA/2023 dated 3 January 2023, also by the District Magistrate, Samba, had its execution stayed by the High Court in WP(C) No.352/2023.

As for FIR involvement, the grounds of detention recorded involvement in six earlier FIRs: No.201/2015 of P/S Samba, 256/2015 of P/S Nagrota, 100/2017 of P/S Nagrota, 45/2021, 60/2021, and 28/2021, all of P/S Larnoo. Seven more FIRs, all pertaining to bovine smuggling, were registered against the petitioner in District Ramban, bearing numbers 126/2022, 127/2022, 128/2022, 129/2022, 132/2022, 134/2022 and 137/2022. In 2025, the petitioner was again implicated in FIR No.55/2025 for offences under Section 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), and 351(2) of the BNS, and FIR No.121/2025 for offences under Section 109, 126(2), 115(2), and 309(4) of the BNS, both registered with P/S Kokernag.

The court observed that at least ten criminal cases had been registered over a span of three years, covering offences including attempt to murder, dacoity, rioting, bovine smuggling, cheating, assault, and criminal intimidation. The court found that these cases disclosed a continuing pattern of intimidation of the public, and that the detaining authority’s inference that the activities had generated widespread fear was not without foundation.

The Legal Position on Preventive Detention Alongside Criminal Prosecution

Justice Dhar placed reliance on three Supreme Court decisions to settle the legal proposition at the heart of the third challenge. In Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 198, the Supreme Court held that preventive detention has nothing to do with the commission of an offence by the detenue or any prosecution against him, and that it can be ordered before or during prosecution, even without any prosecution, and can be made in anticipation. The court noted that a similar view was taken in Naresh Kumar Goel v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 276, and Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019) 20 SCC 609.

Applying this position, the court held that the existence of pending prosecution in substantive offences does not prohibit the detaining authority from resorting to preventive detention, provided there is material from which it can reasonably be inferred that the detenue is a threat to public order. The court added that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in making such an assessment is not subject to judicial review.

On the facts, the court found more than sufficient material available with the detaining authority to support an inference that the petitioner’s activities were of a nature as would endanger public peace and order. No exception could be taken to the action of the detaining authority in passing the impugned order.

Order

Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed HCP No.1/2026 on 30 June 2026, finding no ground to interfere with the detention order dated 1 December 2025. The petition was held to lack merit. The detention record was directed to be returned to counsel for the respondents.