Grant of bail in substantive offenses does not preclude preventive detention based on reasonable apprehension of recidivism.

The petitioner, an alleged "Category A" Over Ground Worker (OGW) for LeT/TRF, challenged the detention order (No. 15-DMK/PSA of 2025) dated 30.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Kupwara.

The petitioner was previously implicated in FIR No. 09/2024 under the Arms Act and UA(P) Act but was granted bail on 29.01.2025.

The detaining authority issued the PSA order citing his long-term involvement in subversive activities since 2012 and the failure of ordinary law and prior preventive measures under Sections 127/170 BNSS to deter his conduct.

The petitioner contended that the grounds were stale, material was not fully supplied, and the mention of a "maximum period" in the order was illegal.

1. Whether a preventive detention order can be passed against a person who has already been granted bail in a substantive criminal case under the UAPA.

2. Whether the non-supply of all relied-upon material or the failure to expeditiously consider a representation violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

3. Whether mentioning the maximum period of detention in the initial order vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

The court applied the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, and Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur, which establish that detention of a person on bail is permissible if there is a real possibility of them re-engaging in prejudicial activities.

Regarding procedural safeguards, it followed Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India and Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra, requiring the supply of all material to enable an "effective representation".

It further noted the principle from Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal that preventive detention is a precautionary measure, not a parallel punishment.

The court found the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction well-founded as the grounds specifically acknowledged the petitioner’s bail and explained the necessity of detention due to his "radical ideology" and continued threat to security despite the bail.

The court dismissed the "non-supply of material" argument, noting the execution report confirmed the petitioner received 80 pages of relied-upon documents.

The court also found no "unexplained lapse" in the government’s handling of the petitioner's representation, as it was considered and rejected within a reasonable timeframe (July to September).

The court ruled that mentioning the maximum detention period does not invalidate the order if independent application of mind is evident from the records.

The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the detention order, concluding that all constitutional and statutory safeguards were satisfied, as sufficient material was supplied and the representation was duly considered.