JUDGMENT : 01. Through the medium of this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner-Saif Din S/O Qamar Din R/O Village Chandak, Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch (hereinafter called " detenue? ) seeks quashment of Order No. 07/DMP/PSA of 2024 dated 23.04.2024 (hereinafter called " detention order ? ) passed by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Poonch (hereinafter called " detaining authority ? ) whereby and whereunder in terms of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, he had been ordered to be detained to prevent him from engaging in activities prejudicial to the public order. 02. The detenue has pleaded that he is a Driver by profession and is an illiterate person, not involved in the commission of any offence but the detaining authority, arbitrarily and in a cavalier manner, has passed the detention order detaining the detenue vide impugned detention order; that he was arrested on 23.04.2024 but he was not informed as to why he had been arrested as he was not provided with any other document than the order of detention; that the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority on baseless dossier suppressing the material facts without application of mind. 03. 03. The detenue has pleaded in the grounds of his petition that the detention order has been passed in a language which is neither comprehensible nor understandable by the detenue and the detention order suffers from vices; that he had not been supplied with the material on which the detention order has been passed depriving him from making an effective representation to the Government/detaining authority in this behalf; that the detention order axiomatically proves non-compliance of the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 as well as the constitutional protection under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India; that all the allegations against the detune are false and the sponsoring agency has suppressed the material facts that out of four cases against the detenue, two have been disposed of by the competent court and this fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority; that he never indulged in any anti- social activity let alone in any anti-national activity; that the detaining authority has not reflected as to how the public order of the State will get affected in case of non- detention of the detenue under preventive custody; that the detaining authority had passed the order in a mechanical manner based only on the dossier prepared by the police. 04. Pursuant to notice, the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the detenue has evolved himself into a notorious bovine smuggler, repeatedly found involved in bovine smuggling cases including cruelty to animals; that he had invariably made bovine smuggling a profession to earn easy money and that he was a part of strong nexus operating in the district to transport bovine animals from district Poonch to Kashmir valley via Mughal road; that his activities are detrimental to maintain public peace and order as well as amounts to hurting the religious sentiments of minority community in twin districts of Poonch and Rajouri and there is due apprehension that his felonious activities will create communal strife further leading to law and order problem in the district; that the constant engagement by the detenue in these criminal activities have created disturbance, fear and an atmosphere of insecurity in the peaceful living of innocent general public as well as impediment to the government functionaries in deliverance of their duties and such activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 05. 05. It has been further pleaded that the contention of the detenue that whole of the material had not been supplied to him pales into insignificance in the light of the execution report duly acknowledged by him that he had received 34 leaves or documents including detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier of detention, copies of FIRs, statement of witnesses and other relevant documents from the Executing Officer; that the execution report also reveals that the detenue was informed of his right to make representation to the Government as well as the detaining authority against his detention order which was explained to him in Urdu language as well; that the detaining authority recorded its subjective satisfaction independent of the recommendation of the sponsoring authority and all the procedural safeguards have been complied with; that the impugned detention order had been confirmed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir after being approved by the Advisory Board. 06. Learned counsel for the detenue, reiterating the submissions made in the petition, has argued that the detenue had been detained illegally by the detaining authority without application of mind and based only on the dossier prepared by the police. 07. He has argued that the detention order has been based on four FIRs registered against the detenue from the year 2018 to 2024 at Police Stations, Surankote/Poonch for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 188 IPC, 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1988. He has further argued that the detaining authority had contravened the procedural safeguards available to the detune as whole of the material was not provided to him; that the detaining authority had neither been informed through dossier by the police nor the detaining authority had itself taken pains to verify, with regard to the result of the four FIRs registered against the detenue as out of the four cases, two cases had already been disposed of by the time the detention order was passed as such it cannot be said that the detaining authority had applied its mind so as to record its satisfaction that the activities attributed to the detenue were in any way detrimental to the public order. He has relied upon the law laid down by this Court in HCP No. 4/2024 titled “ Hamid Mohd. Vs. UT of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. He has relied upon the law laid down by this Court in HCP No. 4/2024 titled “ Hamid Mohd. Vs. UT of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. ” wherein the detention order was quashed in a case where the petitioner was found to have been involved in eleven cases of similar nature. He has also relied upon the law laid down in HCP No. 66/2024 titled “Z affar Ahmed Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. ” and HCP No. 72/2024 titled “ Muskan Ali Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. ” It was finally prayed that the impugned detention order be quashed and the detenue be ordered to be released forthwith from custody. 08. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, argued that the detune, as per the detention order, was involved in repeated cases of bovine smuggling from Poonch to Kashmir via Mughal road and that in the grounds of detention, four FIRs, one of the year 2018, two of the year 2023 and one of the year 2024 had been mentioned on the basis of which the detention order has been passed and in all the FIRs, the detenue had been accused of having committed offences punishable under section 188 IPC and 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1988; that the activities of the detenue were detrimental to the public order as the offence of bovine smuggling can create communal tension in the area, as such, the detention order passed against the detenue was perfectly in consonance with the law and does not call for any intervention. He has argued that the impugned detention order be upheld and the petition filed by the detenue being devoid of any merit and substance, be rejected. 09. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record and considered. 10. He has argued that the impugned detention order be upheld and the petition filed by the detenue being devoid of any merit and substance, be rejected. 09. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record and considered. 10. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Poonch, vide his communication dated 15.04.2024, had submitted a dossier for issuance of warrant of detention under the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, to the detaining authority stating that the detenue Saif Din a resident of village Chandak, tehsil Haveli, district Poonch, over a span of more than a decade, has evolved himself into a notorious bovine smuggler repeatedly found involved in bovine smuggling cases including cruelty to animals; that he had adopted it as a profession to earn easy money and is a part of strong nexus operating in the district to transport bovine animals from district Poonch to Kashmir valley via Mughal road and uses his personal load carrier for transporting bovine animals; that his activities are detrimental to maintain public peace and order as well as amounts to hurting the religious sentiments of minority community in twin districts of Poonch and Rajouri and there is due apprehension that his felonious activities will create communal strife further leading to law and order problem in the district. 11. The detaining authority has made a reference of four cases registered vide FIR Nos. 131/2018, 161/2023, 233/2023 and 69/2024 registered at Police Stations, Poonch/Surankote for commission of offences under sections 188 IPC and 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1988. It has been observed by the detaining authority in the impugned detention order that in light of his criminal behavior, the detenue has become a dedicated troublemaker, posing a serious threat to public peace and tranquility in the area and lastly it was decided to detain him under PSA to deter him from activities prejudicial to public order. 12. A coordinate bench of this court in HCP No. 4/2024 titled “ Hamid Mohd. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. 12. A coordinate bench of this court in HCP No. 4/2024 titled “ Hamid Mohd. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. ” observed that J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 is not a tool in the hands of preventive detention authority to make a short-cut of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is actually meant for convicting or acquitting an accused person charge-sheeted for alleged commission of offences be it a solitary case or in a series of cases decided or pending against a particular accused person. In this case, the petitioner therein was also accused of similar accusations and the court observed that such offences cannot be stated to be relatable, in any manner, to maintenance of public order as no such mention was made in the detention order that at any stage, the law enforcement agency has suffered a difficult time in bringing under control the disturbed public order so as to showcase the petitioner to be a threat to maintenance of public order. The judgment passed in the aforesaid case has been followed by the coordinate benches in HCP No. 66/2024 titled “Z affar Ahmed Vs. UT of J&K & Ors ” and HCP No. 72/2024 titled “ Muskan Ali Vs. UT of J&K & Ors ” 13. The detention order nowhere states that on registration of any of the case right from the year 2018 to 2024 there had been any case of public outrage so as to bracket the case to be of ‘public order’ warranting the detention of the detenue under the Public Safety Act. An offence under section 188 IPC provides that a person is to be punished for disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public authority. 14. It appears that the detenue was charged for having contravened the order issued by the District Magistrate to have transported the bovine animals without permission, therefore, simply registering a case under section 188 IPC does not ‘ipso facto’ constitute an offence of ‘bovine smuggling’. Transportation without permission can be a disobedience of an order issued by public authority which does not necessarily mean that it amounts to bovine smuggling of which the detenue has been alleged. Transportation without permission can be a disobedience of an order issued by public authority which does not necessarily mean that it amounts to bovine smuggling of which the detenue has been alleged. For example a person who transports his own animals or purchased animals from one district to another without permission cannot be stated to have smuggled such bovine animals and such an offence if committed by a person can be dealt with under the penal law for which invoking the preventive detention of a person for a period of one year, without affording him an opportunity of being heard or without being tried would be a travesty of justice. The detaining authority in this case has, thus, exceeded its jurisdiction to state that the detention order was required to be passed so as to prevent the detenue from carrying on the activities prejudicial to the public order. Public order is a form of development, which erupts due to public anger and is something beyond the failure of the law and order, therefore, without any such development, it cannot be stated that the detenue was a threat to the maintenance of public order, so as to attract his detention. 15. Instead of being contended with, investigation into, prosecution therefor, with regard to penal offences, the State should not take recourse to preventive detention of an accused of such offences, without there being any right to bail, as during trial. Preventive detention is a strong arm tactic of the State to divest a citizen, from his most cherishable fundamental right of ‘personal liberty’. The State should not resort to take recourse to preventive detention, on drop of a hat, but reserve this option for exceptionally grave cas8es, which may call for the same, having regard to the prejudicial activities to public order or national security. Public order is a grave situation, much beyond the law and order situation. In the detenue’s case, no such instance or activity on his part has been shown that in the six years from the year 2018 to 2024, there was any problem of law and order even, the State had to tackle with, not to talk of public order. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, in case he is not required in any other case. 17. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, in case he is not required in any other case. 17. The scanned detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents is ordered to be returned to him against proper receipt. 18. The petition is disposed of, accordingly.