Bail to accused cannot be ground to invoke preventive detention law: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently quashed the preventive detention of the former Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) corporator Aqib Ahmad Renzu after noting that there was no reason to invoke preventive detention law against him [Aqib Ahmad Renzu vs. Union Territory of J&K]..A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice MA Choudhary observed that although Renzu had been booked in seven criminal complaints, the ordinary criminal law was sufficient to address these alleged offences. The fact that Renzu was granted bail in these cases was also no ground to invoke preventive detention law against him, the Court added. "The offences as alleged in the FIRs are not of the nature that ordinary criminal law cannot deal with those offences and the fact that he was admitted to bail in these FIRs is no ground to detain him under preventive law and, thus, impugned detention of the detenue is unsustainable under law. In the present case, the ordinary law of land was sufficient to deal with the situation," the Court said. .The Court found that the grounds cited to place Renzu in preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) did not indicate that he had done any activity that constituted a threat to public order as defined under Section 8(3)."The grounds of detention also reveal that the allegations against the detenue in the grounds of detention with regard to offences also do not fall under the realm of public order as defined under Section 8(3) of the Act as there is no allegation against the appellant-detenue regarding his activities effecting public at large. The allegations may amount to law and order issue but he cannot be held to have disturbed the public order," the Court said. .Renzu was detained under the PSA in October last year, a week after he was reportedly arrested in connection with a sexual harassment case. He then moved the High Court with a plea to quash the preventive detention.On June 7 this year, a single judge of the High Court dismissed Renzu's Habeas Corpus petition, while observing that Renzu's participation in nationalist activities does not give him a license to indulge in criminal activities..Renzu challenged this June 7 ruling before the Division Bench of the High Court. His counsel argued that the single-judge did not consider that Renzu was neither a 'stone-pelter' not an anti-national or anti-social element, contrary to the detaining authority's claims. He added that Renzu has been part of mainstream politics and has worked shoulder to shoulder with the government for the restoration of peace and development in Kashmir. He further argued that the single-judge did not factor in that Renzu was not provided all of the material relied on by the detaining authority to order his preventive detention, which affected his right to make an effective representation against the detention. .The Court found merit in the contention that Renzu was not given all the material relied on to order his preventive detention. "It is clear from the material available on file that all the documents have not been provided to the appellant-detenue in order to enable him to make an effective representation to the Government or Detaining Authority, as such, non-supply of material violates the rights of the appellant-detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and would make the order unsustainable in the eyes of law," the Court said. .The Court proceeded to quash the preventive detention order after it noted that the ordinary criminal law was enough to tackle the alleged offences invoked against Renzu..Advocate Shuja ul Haq appeared for Renzu.Government Advocate Faheem Nisar represented the Jammu and Kashmir authorities. .[Read Order]