Preventive detention is valid when grounds provide specific details of anti-national activities despite existing criminal proceedings.

The petitioner, Tanveer Ahmad Najar, challenged the detention order (No. 11/DMB/PSA/2025) dated 29.04.2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, under the J&K Public Safety Act

The grounds for detention cited the petitioner's alleged involvement in anti-national activities and contact with Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) terrorists via encrypted applications following his release on bail in FIR No. 203/2018 (Sections 7/25 Arms Act and 13 UA(P) Act)

The petitioner contended that the grounds were a replica of the police dossier, vague, and stale, and that his representation was not considered

1. Whether there were compelling circumstances to justify preventive detention when the petitioner was already facing trial in a regular criminal case

2. Whether the allegations in the grounds of detention were sufficiently specific to allow the petitioner to make an effective representation

3. Whether the respondents failed to communicate the result of the petitioner's representation against the detention order

The court applied the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act, which allows for preventive detention to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the State

It relied on the principle that preventive detention is justified even during a pending trial if there is a reasonable prediction of future behavior based on specific intelligence, such as continued contact with terrorist organizations

Furthermore, the court adhered to the constitutional requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India (mirrored in the PSA), which mandates that the detaining authority must provide the grounds of detention and consider representations in a timely and transparent manner

The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that a pending FIR precluded preventive detention, noting that the grounds of detention specifically alleged that after being granted bail, the petitioner re-engaged in anti-national activities by coordinating terror plans with LeT terrorists in Pakistan to target ethnic groups

Regarding the "vague allegations" claim, the court found the grounds were sufficiently detailed as they named specific terrorists the petitioner was in contact with and the specific geographical areas of operation; this was evidenced by the petitioner’s ability to file a comprehensive 13-paragraph representation

Lastly, the court scrutinized the detention records, which proved that the petitioner’s representation was received on 06.06.2025, rejected on 16.07.2025 after obtaining a CID report, and that the disposal of the representation was duly conveyed to the petitioner as evidenced by his signed receipt

The court answered the issues in the negative, finding that all statutory and constitutional safeguards were met. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the detention record was ordered to be returned to the respondents