Grant of bail cannot be a ground for application of preventive detention law, says Jammu and Kashmir High Court

The fact that an accused in a criminal case has been granted bail does not constitute a ground for invoking the preventive detention law, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has said.

These remarks were made by a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice MA Choudhary on Thursday while quashing the detention of former Srinagar Municipal Councillor Aqib Ahmad Renzu under the Public Safety Act.

The Public Safety Act is a law on preventive detention under which persons can be taken into custody in order to prevent them from committing an offence against ‘state security or the maintenance of public order’ within the Union territory.

Renzu, who has been subject to numerous criminal charges, was granted bail in seven first information reports between 2013 and 2023.

However, in October last year, he was arrested under the Public Security Law, a week after he was arrested in a sexual harassment case. Bar and bank The detaining authorities claimed that his detention was necessary to prevent him from engaging in activities that endanger public order.

The former city councilor then filed an application with the court to request the lifting of his preventive detention.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that Renzu was released on bail in the criminal cases was not a reason to apply the public security law against him. Ordinary criminal laws were sufficient to deal with the criminal charges against him, it added.

The Court also found that the reasons given for placing Renzu in preventive detention under the Public Security Act did not indicate an act within the meaning of Article 8(3), which constitutes a threat to public order.

“Although the allegations may constitute a breach of public order, he cannot be accused of disturbing public order,” the court said.

On June 7 Single judge of the same court had rejected a petition filed by Renzu against his detention, Bar and bank reported. The single judge had ruled that the former city councilor’s participation in “nationalist activities” did not give him permission to indulge in criminal activities.

During the hearing before the bench, lawyer Shuja ul Haq, representing Renzu, said that the former municipal councillor had worked side by side with the government to restore peace and development in Kashmir and was part of mainstream politics.

Haq also said the single judge had not examined whether Renzu was neither a “stone-thrower” nor an “anti-national” element, as claimed by the detention authority.

He noted that the single judge’s previous order had failed to take into account that Renzu had not been provided with all the documents used by the detention authority to order his pre-trial detention. This affected his right to effectively challenge his detention, Haq said, according to Bar and bank.

The High Court’s Chamber of Deputies overturned Renzu’s detention but said it was clear that he had not been provided with all the relevant documents to contest the charges against him.