Jahanvi Agarwal
On 14th September 2024, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the mere fact an accused person has been granted bail in criminal cases cannot be used as grounds to invoke preventive detention laws. This decision came in response to a petition filed by Aqib Ahmad Renzu, a former Srinagar Municipal Corporation corporator, challenging his detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA).
The PSA is a law that allows for the preventive detention of individuals to ensure they do not act in a manner threatening “the security of the state or the maintenance of public order” in the Union Territory.
The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice MA Choudhary, quashed Renzu’s detention, emphasizing that the criminal charges against him did not warrant the application of the PSA. They remarked that ordinary criminal laws were sufficient to address the accusations against him, and being granted bail in multiple criminal cases should not serve as a justification for preventive detention. “The fact that the accused has been granted bail cannot be a reason to invoke the Public Safety Act,” the Court noted.
Renzu had been granted bail in seven first information reports (FIRs) between 2013 and 2023. However, in October of last year, just a week after his arrest in a sexual harassment case, authorities detained him under the PSA, citing the need to prevent him from engaging in activities disruptive to public order. The detaining authority claimed that Renzu’s detention was necessary to safeguard public peace.
Renzu filed a petition to challenge his detention, arguing that the grounds for invoking the PSA were not legitimate. The Court agreed, noting that the allegations against him did not meet the threshold under Section 8(3) of the PSA, which requires a threat to public order. “The allegations may amount to a law-and-order issue, but he cannot be held to have disturbed the public order,” the bench ruled.
Earlier, in June, a single judge from the same court had dismissed Renzu’s petition, stating that his involvement in “nationalist activities” did not shield him from criminal accountability. During the division bench proceedings, Renzu’s counsel, advocate Shuja ul Haq, argued that the single judge’s order had overlooked key facts. Haq emphasized that Renzu was not a “stone-pelter” or “anti-national element” as alleged by the authorities. Moreover, he contended that the detaining authority had not provided Renzu with all the necessary documents, which deprived him of his right to effectively challenge his detention.
In its ruling, the Division Bench underscored that Renzu had not been given the complete material that the detaining authority used to justify his preventive detention. This procedural flaw, the court determined, violated his right to make an effective representation against his detention. Consequently, the High Court quashed Renzu’s detention under the PSA, ruling in favor of his release.
Case Name: Aqib Ahmad Renzu vs. Union Territory of J&K
Case Number: LPA No. 171/2024
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice MA Choudhary