Srinagar, June 1, KDC: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that granting bail to an accused in a criminal case does not prevent authorities from invoking preventive detention laws if the person shows a continuous tendency to engage in illegal activities.
Dismissing a petition challenging a detention order, a single bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary said that ordinary criminal prosecution and preventive detention operate in entirely different fields. The court noted that while criminal law punishes past acts, preventive detention is a precautionary measure based on reasonable anticipation of future behavior.
The ruling came during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition filed by Parvaiz Ahmad Ganie, a resident of Zainapora in Shopian district. Ganie had challenged a preventive detention order passed against him on January 9, 2026, by the Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act.
Ganie’s lawyer, Advocate Usman Gani, argued that the detention order was based on stale grounds, specifically a September 2024 case where Ganie was arrested after police recovered contraband from his yard. The petitioner argued that since he had already been granted bail by a competent court and was facing trial, the detaining authority could not use the same old case to justify preventive custody.
Defending the state’s action, Advocate Haris Khan, appearing on behalf of Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadri, submitted that Ganie’s illegal activities were continuous and recurring. The state argued that despite the clear condition in his bail order not to engage in such trade, intelligence reports showed Ganie was discretely operating a clandestine network, making preventive custody necessary to protect society.
The High Court agreed with the state’s contention, noting that the detention record showed a live and proximate link between Ganie’s past conduct and his recent activities.
Referring to the core purpose of the law, Justice Chowdhary, according to news agency Kashmir Dot observed, “The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence.”
The court further highlighted that the pendency of a criminal trial or a grant of bail does not take away the power of the detaining authority to issue a preventive order, especially when there is a risk of the person repeating the offense.
Differentiating between the two legal processes, the court said, “In a prosecution an accused is sought to be punished for a past act. In preventive detention, the past act is merely the material for inference about the future course of probable conduct on the part of the detenu.”
The court also said that the primary objective of such laws is public safety rather than punishment, saying, “The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing so.”
Finding no procedural illegality or lack of application of mind, the court held that personal liberty, while deeply cherished, cannot override lawful preventive measures backed by relevant material. With these observations, the High Court upheld the detention order and dismissed the petition. (KDC)
