Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Quashes Detention Order in Cattle Theft Cases, Says Breach of Law Not Always Public Disorder
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a detention order against a man booked in a series of FIRs for alleged livestock and cattle theft. The court held that a breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder.
The court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal against a judgment in which the writ court had dismissed the man's plea and upheld the detention order passed by the District Magistrate. The Bench of Chief Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed that there is a marked difference between a disturbance related to "law and order" and a disturbance caused to "public order". It reiterated that a breach of law in every case does not amount to public disorder.
The appellant had been detained by the Detaining Authority under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He challenged the order before the High Court, which dismissed his plea. He then filed the intra-court appeal, arguing that his alleged involvement in a series of cattle theft FIRs did not amount to public disorder.
The Bench noted that the criminal acts had led to a series of FIRs and final reports or chargesheets under Section 193 BNSS, amounting to an infraction of law and order under Sections 331(4) and 305 BNS, but this did not imply a disturbance of "social order". It said the alleged actions amounted to an infraction of laws for which the legal mechanism was already in place, and invoking the PSA to detain the appellant instead of pursuing prosecution appeared to be an unjustified exercise and an abuse of process of law. The court added that the non-application of mind by the detaining authority was explicit, and that a detention order suffering from non-application of mind cannot be sustained under law.
The Bench was of the view that the ordinary criminal law and order machinery was sufficient to deal with the appellant. It observed that the character and antecedents of an accused are of predominant consideration while considering bail, and that criminal courts before which the cases are pending trial are expected to consider such governing principles while deciding any application for bail or cancellation of bail.
Setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench quashed the detention order and directed that the detenue be released forthwith. Advocate Parvaiz Amin Wani represented the petitioner, while Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadri appeared for the respondent, assisted by Maha Majeed. The case is titled Tariq Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of J and K (LPA No. 254/2026 in HCP No. 21/2026).
Source: Verdictum