Srinagar, Oct 23: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Kulgam man booked under the Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that the material placed before the detaining authority concerning his alleged repeated involvement in cattle theft cases did not warrant judicial interference.

Justice M.A. Chowdhary dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Tariq Ahmad Dar, son of Ghulam Hassan Dar and a resident of Raiwattan Asnoor in the Manzgam area of Kulgam, challenging detention order No. 07/DMK/PSA/2025 dated December 13, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Kulgam.
According to the grounds of detention, Dar was implicated in 11 FIRs relating to alleged livestock and cattle theft. Chargesheets had been filed in the cases, and he had obtained bail. The petitioner challenged the detention on several grounds, arguing that the allegations were matters for ordinary criminal proceedings and did not justify preventive detention. His counsel also questioned the non-supply of bail orders and argued that the grounds of detention had been prepared in English without translated copies being provided to him.
The government opposed the petition, maintaining that the detaining authority had independently considered the material and that the grounds of detention had been explained to Dar in a language he understood. It also argued that the references to bail orders did not constitute a basis for invalidating the detention.
Examining the case, the High Court reiterated the distinction between ordinary law-and-order issues and conduct capable of disturbing public order. It observed that the relevant consideration was not merely the number of cases but the alleged pattern, continuity and potential community impact of the activities attributed to the detainee.
The court noted that the detention authority had considered the alleged involvement in multiple cases rather than relying on a single incident. It also found no sufficient ground to accept the challenges concerning the bail orders or communication of the detention grounds, holding that the material on record indicated that the relevant safeguards had been substantially complied with.
The court clarified that it was not deciding Dar’s guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal cases, which remain subject to determination by the competent criminal courts. Finding no constitutional or statutory infirmity warranting interference, it dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the detention order.