Pendency of criminal cases and grant of bail do not bar preventive detention based on subjective satisfaction.

The petitioner, Sheeraz Ahmad Sheikh, challenged the Detention Order No. 08/DMS/PSA of 2025 dated 01.05.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Shopian, under Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978.

The detention was based on a police dossier alleging the petitioner acted as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) for terrorist outfits, providing logistics and information.

The dossier cited three FIRs: one from 2019 involving explosive substances and two from 2010 involving theft/criminal trespass.

The petitioner argued there was a six-year delay between the last alleged activity (2019) and the detention (2025), snapping the "live link," and that relevant documents were not provided to make an effective representation.

The respondents countered that the petitioner’s activities posed a grave threat to security and that all procedural safeguards were followed.

1. Whether a delay of approximately six years between the last alleged criminal activity and the issuance of the detention order vitiates the order due to lack of proximity.

2. Whether the failure to file an application for cancellation of bail in substantive criminal cases debars the detaining authority from invoking preventive detention.

3. Whether the detention order was passed without proper application of mind or subjective satisfaction, given the grounds were allegedly a verbatim copy of the police dossier.

Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, which empowers the state to detain persons to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the UT or public order.

The landmark precedent Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1975), which established that preventive detention is a precautionary measure distinct from punitive law; it can be exercised regardless of whether a prosecution is pending, has resulted in an acquittal, or even if the subject is on bail.

The court further referenced Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) to reiterate that the object of preventive detention is not to punish past acts but to intercept future conduct.

The court found that the detaining authority had provided 41 leaves of relevant material to the petitioner, and since the petitioner failed to file a rejoinder to refute the state’s affidavit, the claim of non-supply of documents remained unproven.

On the issue of stale grounds, the court held that the petitioner’s past conduct, involving multiple FIRs and terror-related logistics, allowed the authority to draw a "reasonable prognosis" of future behavior.

It emphasized that under Article 22(5) and the PSA, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the "subjective satisfaction" of the detaining authority regarding the necessity of detention.

The court noted that the representation filed by the petitioner’s brother was duly considered by the Home Department and rejected on merits, satisfying constitutional requirements.

Finally, it ruled that the existence of bail or the failure of the state to challenge such bail does not preclude preventive detention if the authority believes ordinary law is insufficient to deter anti-national activities.

The court held that the pendency of criminal cases or the grant of bail is no bar to preventive detention as the two serve different purposes.

The petition was dismissed, and the detention order No. 08/DMS/PSA of 2025 was upheld, and the court ordered the return of the detention records to the respondents.