The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has upheld the preventive detention of Sher Mohd, a resident of Kishtwar, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. This case arose from serious allegations of bovine slaughter, which led to significant communal disturbances in the region.
The petition challenging the detention was filed by Sher Mohd’s wife, Famida Begum. She argued that important documents were not provided to her husband and that the authorities had not applied their mind properly while issuing the detention order. However, the Court rejected all these claims after a detailed hearing.
“As per the allegations made in the said FIR, the detenu was stated to have slaughtered a bovine animal, as a result of which, religious sentiments of a particular community were hurt,”
– Justice Sanjay Dhar
Read Also:- Pendency Of Arbitration Does Not Stop Stamp Authorities From Acting Under Stamp Act: Allahabad High Court
The Court also noted that after Sher Mohd was granted bail in the criminal case, a series of protests and demonstrations broke out across different police station areas in Kishtwar. These protests reportedly disturbed peace and communal harmony.
Sher Mohd was arrested under FIR sections 196 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly slaughtering a calf. Even after receiving bail from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he was accused of continuing provocative actions, which escalated communal unrest. The District Magistrate issued a preventive detention order, citing public safety concerns.
Read Also:- “Judges Should Act, Not Promise”: CJI BR Gavai’s Message at BCI Felicitation
The petitioner's key argument was that 16 daily diary reports, which were used as grounds for detention, were not given to the detenu. However, the Court found this claim baseless. Justice Dhar clarified that the detenu had received a detailed 35-page dossier, which included the FIR, detention grounds, and the daily diary reports.
“The petitioner’s claim of non-supply of documents is factually incorrect and without merit,”
– Justice Sanjay Dhar
Another point raised was that the preventive detention was not necessary since Sher Mohd had already been arrested and granted bail in a criminal case. The Court rejected this argument too, emphasizing that the detaining authority acted based on the communal situation and unrest that followed his release.
The Court also responded to the argument that the detaining authority did not explain the rejection of the representation made by the detenu.
“There is no requirement in law to furnish reasons regarding the decision of the competent authority with respect to rejection or acceptance of such representation,”
– Justice Sanjay Dhar
The High Court concluded that the preventive detention order was legally valid and followed due procedure. As a result, the Court dismissed the petition filed by Famida Begum, calling it without any merit.
Case Title: Sher Mohd Vs UT Of J&K
