JUDGMENT : 1. District Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter called ‘Detaining Authority’) in exercise of powers under Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, passed the detention Order No. 13 of 2022 dated 18.10.2022 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the petitioner namely Angoor Choudhary S/o. Nagina Choudhary R/o. Bishan Purba W.No.04, Post Office, B.B. Bankataba, P/S Bathbadia, District Champaran Bihar (for short ‘detenue’), has been detained. 2. It is being pleaded in the petition that the detention order so passed against the petitioner was not addressed to detenue which shows the callousness and non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority; that the detaining authority has not mentioned a word in the detention order with regard to the satisfaction drawn by it as to how it has come to the conclusion of passing the detention order, but the respondents without the application of mind and without considering the material on record had issued and passed the impugned detention order which is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted under law, as such, the same is liable to be quashed; that the order of detention and the connected documents annexed with the petition clearly show violation of right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 3. Pursuant to notice, respondent has failed to file counter affidavit despite grant of several opportunities, however, learned counsel for the respondent has orally opposed this petition. 3. Pursuant to notice, respondent has failed to file counter affidavit despite grant of several opportunities, however, learned counsel for the respondent has orally opposed this petition. He submitted stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained for maintenance of "public order" and had he been let free, there would have been every likelihood of his indulging in further criminal activities; that it has been reported by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Railway Jammu vide dossier No. Rlys/Crime/2022/13506-09 dated 17.10.2022 that on 22.09.2022 patrolling party of RPF, Jammu received an information about the presence of the detenue in the premises of Railway Station, Jammu who, allegedly, served tea mixed with some intoxicants to the railway passengers, and on this specific information, detenue was tracked by RPF men and finally apprehended along with two railway passengers who were totally in an unconscious state and these passengers were immediately taken to hospital for treatment and when they regained their consciousness, they revealed the entire episode, how they were tempted and duped by the detenue, his deceptive act of offering tea to the Railway passengers mixed with intoxicants made the passengers lost their consciousness, enabling him to extort cash and other belongings of the passengers; that the power of preventive detention is different from punishment as the preventive detention is aimed at stopping the illegal activities of an individual, which, otherwise, under common law both criminal/civil cannot be stopped and the said individual would have created havoc in the society, which leads to public disorder, disturbing peace, stability; that petitioner's activities were threat to the public order, peace and stability in the society. It is also being stated that the detenue being involved in numerous criminal activities was not likely to desist from his criminal activities, which were prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and public order in District Jammu and other States also. 4. Learned counsel for the detenue, while being heard, making reference to the grounds of the detention, would argue that on a cursory look on the same, it is manifest that same are vague. 4. Learned counsel for the detenue, while being heard, making reference to the grounds of the detention, would argue that on a cursory look on the same, it is manifest that same are vague. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority on the basis of dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Railway Jammu, without application of mind and without evaluating the allegations made against the detenue in the said dossier, copy of which was not even provided to the detenue, proceeded to pass impugned detention order, whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged at Central Jail Kot, Jammu. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority has not mentioned in the detention order that the detenue has right to make representation against the order of detention and has not supplied the copies of the chargesheet/FIRs and material relied upon by the Detaining Authority, so that the petitioner could make effective and meaningful representation against the detention order to the government, as such, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, ex adverso, submits that the record reveals that there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention. All the procedural safeguards prescribed under Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution, have strictly been followed in the instant case. The detenue has been furnished all the material, as was required, and was also made aware of his right to make representation to the detaining authority as well as government, against his detention. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and considered the record. 7. The right of personal liberty is the most precious right guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, inalienable right available to a person. A person is not to be deprived of his/her personal liberty except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his/her personal liberty because of the criminal charge framed against him/her, has an opportunity to defend himself/herself and to be acquitted of the charges, in case the prosecution fails to bring home his/her guilt. Where such a person is convicted of the offence, he/she still has the satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his/her defence. 8. Nevertheless, framers of the Constitution have, by incorporating Article 22 (5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person having been held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. The object is to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case, it would be dangerous for the people at large to wait and watch as, by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous designs, would execute his/her plans, exposing the general public to risk and cause colossal damage to life and property. It is, therefore, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent the person bent upon perpetrating mischief from translating his/her ideas into action. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India therefore leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 9. The detention record, as produced, reveals that the detenue was involved in following cases registered at Police Stations, GRP Jammu and Pathankote vide:- (i) FIR No. 21/2017; U/S 328/379/511 RPC Act; (ii) FIR No. 48/2018; U/S 25/54/59-A Act; and (iii) FIR No. 13/2022; U/S 328 IPC. Involvement of the detenue in the aforementioned cases appears to have heavily weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order. 10. Involvement of the detenue in the aforementioned cases appears to have heavily weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of “Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B.” [ (1975) 3 SCC 198 ], has succinctly pointed out difference between preventive and punitive detention in the following words : "The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The, basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one, case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent." 11. The conceptual framework of preventive detention has been reiterated in “Khudiram Das v. State of W.B.”, [ (1975) 2 SCR 832 ], as under : "The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. Since every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof." 12. Since every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof." 12. In “Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India”, [ (2005) 8 SCC 276 ], the Court observed : "It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so." 13. Perusal of detention record reveals that detenue at the time of execution of detention was provided copy of the detention order, copy of the grounds of detention and other material. The detenue, as record would reveal, was also informed as regards making of representation against the detention order if he so desired, both to detaining authority and Government. 14. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order. The detaining authority has narrated facts and figures that made it to exercise its powers under Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, and record subjective satisfaction that detenue was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to maintenance of the public order. The detaining authority has informed detenue that he is an accused in three cases, in two of them involving the detenue offering tea to the Railway passengers mixed with intoxicants, which made those passengers unconsciousness, enabling him to extort cash and other belongings of the passengers in the premises of Railway Station Jammu, which poses serious and great threat to the general public. So viewed, the detenue is not to be heard saying that any of his Constitutional and Statutory rights have been violated while detention order in question was slapped on him and thereafter executed. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clearly disclosed that it is not a number of acts that are to be determined for detention of an individual, but it is an impact of the act, which is material and determinative. In the instant case, it is discernable that the act of the detenue relates to selling/offering tea to the Railway passengers mixed with intoxicants, which made the passengers lose their consciousness, enabling him to extort cash and other belongings of the passengers in the premises of Railway Station, Jammu, as such, the detenue has created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity/fear in the minds of the public of the area. Thus, the activities of the detenue are of criminal and habitual nature, as the main motive of the detenue was to steal money as well as other belongings from the passengers, by making them unconscious, as such, it was against the safety of the general passengers including the pilgrims visiting the Shrine of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi, hence, detenue has rightly been detained by the respondent. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is found to be devoid of any merit and substance and is liable to be rejected. The petition is thus dismissed and the impugned order relating to preventive detention of the detenue is upheld. 17. Detention record, as produced, be returned to the learned Dy AG.