Srinagar, Nov 3: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a preventive detention order issued against a Pulwama man under the Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that serious allegations alone cannot justify detention without specific supporting material and independent application of mind by the detaining authority.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while allowing the petition, held that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal proceedings or as a means to bypass legal safeguards.
The detention order had been passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, on the basis of a police dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pulwama.
The petitioner, a driver by profession, was accused of maintaining contact with Pakistan-based terrorist handlers through telephone and the encrypted application Zangi, allegedly using a secured VPN. He was also accused of functioning as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) by providing food, shelter, transportation and information to active terrorists, including details about security force movements.
Challenging the detention, the petitioner argued that the allegations were speculative, lacked specific supporting evidence and were largely reproduced from the police dossier. He also submitted that several documents relied upon by the authorities had not been supplied to him, affecting his ability to make an effective representation.
The Court observed that the detention grounds did not specify the dates of the alleged communications, the nature of information exchanged, particular instances of logistical assistance or incidents establishing the apprehension of future prejudicial activities.
It held that the allegations, though serious, required cogent material and could be investigated under ordinary criminal law, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, wherever applicable.
The Court also noted that references to the petitioner having been bound down under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita could not, by themselves, establish the necessity for preventive detention.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (1984), the Court reiterated that preventive detention cannot be invoked when ordinary criminal law is sufficient to deal with the alleged conduct.
It further observed that the detaining authority must independently assess the material placed before it rather than mechanically reproduce the police dossier.
Quashing the detention order, the Court directed the authorities to release the petitioner forthwith, provided his custody was not required in any other case or under another lawful order.