The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has strongly condemned the misuse of preventive detention powers in the case of Mohd. Abass vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others. Justice Rahul Bharti quashed the detention order passed under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, calling it a “punitive measure in the garb of preventive detention.”
The court held that the detention of the petitioner, Mohd. Abass, was not only unlawful but also the result of serious abuse of legal process by the authorities involved. The court criticised both the District Magistrate, Kathua, and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua, for submitting and acting upon a "tainted dossier."
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of Ex-ADJ Mehar Singh Rattu Citing Adverse ACRs
“This Court is astonished rather disturbed to read that two criminal cases, which had earned closure in the form of acquittal of the petitioner… getting cited as bad antecedents… to inflate the dossier,” the judgment noted.
The SSP Kathua had submitted a dossier alleging that the petitioner was a hardened criminal, citing three FIRs: two of which—FIR No. 90/2001 and FIR No. 44/2007—had resulted in acquittal. The third, FIR No. 16/2020, under Section 420 IPC, was still pending, but the High Court clarified that the investigation was merely restricted—not stayed—and did not justify preventive detention.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Dismisses PIL Against Justice Appointment, Citing Lack of Merit
“An acquittal cleanses him of any criminal antecedent by relation to the criminal case… and citing old, closed cases to sensationalise a detention dossier was wholly improper,” the Court stated.
The judgment expressed concern over the District Magistrate's role, noting a four-month delay in acting upon the SSP’s request without any explanation. This delay, the court said, “betrays the urgency which the law demands in preventive detention matters.”
“Ignorance of law is no excuse,” the Court emphasized, adding that such powers must be exercised with the utmost care and legal awareness.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court: No Liability on Insurer If Policy Cancelled Before Delivery Due to Non-Payment of Premium
The SSP also made a casual reference to an alleged 2011 preventive detention of the petitioner without producing any record to support the claim, which the court found highly unprofessional and lacking due diligence.
“The respondent No. 3 – SSP Kathua was in fact abusing the position of being the author of the dossier… acting out of malice in law if not malice in fact,” the judge observed.
Declaring the detention “vitiated from inception,” the court quashed the order and all related extensions, directing the immediate release of the petitioner from Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, or any other place of confinement.
Read Also:- ED Withdraws Summons Issued to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal After Supreme Court Bar Body's Objection
The court reaffirmed the importance of protecting constitutional safeguards and personal liberty, stating that mere allegations, particularly from acquitted cases, cannot form the basis for preventive detention.
“It is nothing but an abuse of authority,” the court held, making clear that preventive detention is not to be used as a substitute for punitive action under regular criminal law.
Case Title: Mohd. Abbas vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others, 2025
Petitioner Advocate: Mr. Ajay Gandotra
Respondents Advocate: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA
