Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 12.02.2026 vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 84/2025
Reserved on: 12.02.2026
Pronounced on : 20.02.2026
Uploaded on : 20.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Vishal Sharma @ Shooter
....Petitioners
Through:- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K & Ors
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy. AG \
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
(JUDGMENT)
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present
petition, has challenged the legality and validity of order No.
PSA 08 of 2025 dated 17.05.2025 issued by respondent No. 2-
District Magistrate, Jammu whereby the petitioner has been
placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order.
02. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of
detention on the grounds that the same has been passed
mechanically without proper application of mind. It has been
contended that in FIR No. 108/2021 of Police Station, Bari
HCP No. 84/2025 Page 1 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:463
Brahmana, the petitioner has been acquitted, as such, the
same could not have been relied upon by the detaining
authority while passing the impugned order of detention. It
has been further contended that at the time of passing of
impugned order of detention, the petitioner was already in
custody in another FIR, details whereof have not been
mentioned in the grounds of detention, as such, the impugned
order of detention is vitiated.
03. It has also been contended that allegations leveled
against the petitioner in the FIRs, which have been relied upon
by the detaining authority in passing the impugned order of
detention, are not of such a serious nature as would give rise
to apprehension of breach to the public order. It has been
further contended that the respondents instead of seeking
cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner has resorted to
passing of the impugned order of detention, which is not
permissible in law. It has been contended that most of the
documents, which were forwarded to the petitioner, were not
legible as a result of which he could not make an effective
representation against the impugned order of detention. It has
been further contended that the respondents have not adhered
to the statutory and constitutional imperatives while executing
the warrant of detention against the petitioner.
04. The respondents have contested the petition by
filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority. In the
counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is a
HCP No. 84/2025 Page 2 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:463
notorious criminal involved in various offences like attempt to
murder, assault and criminal trespass by using illegal
weapons. It has been submitted that five FIRs are registered
against the petitioner and his involvement in these cases
clearly depicts that he is a habitual criminal and he has no
regard for the law. It has been further submitted that the
petitioner poses a serious threat to the maintenance of public
order as he is a threat to the society at large. It has been
submitted that all the documents including the grounds of
detention, PSA warrant, dossier, FIRs and other relevant
material have been furnished to the petitioner at the time of
execution of warrant of detention and the grounds of detention
have been read over and explained to him in Hindi as well as
Dogri language.
05. The petitioner also filed his rejoinder affidavit in
which besides reiterating the contentions raised in the
petition, he has contended that there is no mention of one
more FIR bearing No. 75 of 2023 registered against the
petitioner with Police Station, Miran Sahib in the grounds of
detention and the grounds do not indicate that the petitioner
was already in custody in the said FIR at the time of passing of
impugned order of detention. It has been submitted that in
view of the fact that the petitioner was already in custody,
there was no compelling reason for the detaining authority to
pass the impugned order of detention. It has been further
contended that on 10.06.2025, the petitioner has made a
HCP No. 84/2025 Page 3 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:463
representation before respondent No. 1, however, the same has
not been decided by the respondents.
06. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case including the detention record,
which has been produced by learned counsel for the
respondents.
07. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has
urged numerous grounds for assailing the impugned order of
detention yet during the course of arguments, he has laid
much emphasis on the ground that representation of the
petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not
been considered and decided by the Government with
promptitude.
08. There appears to be merit in the aforesaid
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of
the detention record reveals that representation dated
10.06.2025 made by the petitioner against the impugned order
of detention before the Government has been received by the
respondents because a copy of the said representation is
available in the detention record produced by the Home
Department. It appears that on 16.06.2025, a copy of the said
representation was forwarded by Home Department of the
Government to Additional Director General of Police, CID, J&K
for seeking his comments. The record further suggests that
the representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the
Government only on 02.11.2025 and a communication came
HCP No. 84/2025 Page 4 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:463
to be addressed by Additional Secretary to Government, Home
Department to District Magistrate, Jammu on the said date
informing him about the rejection of the representation of the
petitioner. It seems that information about the rejection of the
representation of the petitioner was furnished to him by the
Superintendent of the concerned jail. From this, it comes to
the fore that representation of the petitioner has been
considered by the Government after more than four and a half
months.
09. The question that arises for consideration is as to
whether delay in disposal of representation of a detenue has
any effect on the validity of the order of detention.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjeet Singh
Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others,
(2021) 20 SCC 98 has held that failure to decide the
representation of a detenue within a reasonable time in an
expeditious manner strikes at the valuable right of the
detenue. This position of law has been consistently followed
by this Court in a number of judgments and in this regard,
observations made by this Court in Mohd. Tahir Pall Vs. UT
of J&K & ors (HCP No. 114/2025) are quoted below:
“From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is
manifest that delaying of decision on the representation of
the detenue amounts to an infringement of a valuable right
which is available to a detenue in terms of provisions
contained in Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public
Safety Act, which makes it obligatory on the detaining
authority to communicate to the detenue the grounds on
which the order of detention has been made within aHCP No. 84/2025 Page 5 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:463maximum period of ten days from the date of detention
and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making
representation against the order of detention. The purpose
of furnishing the grounds of detention within a maximum
period of ten days is to enable a detenue to make a
representation against the order of detention at the
earliest opportunity. Thus, a duty is cast upon the
detaining authority or the government to consider the said
representation at the earliest opportunity. Failure to
decide the representation of a detenue within a reasonable
time in an expeditious manner strikes at the valuable right
of a detenue emanating from the provisions of Section 13
of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act.”
16. In the present case, the respondents have decided
the representation of the petitioner after more than four and a
half months. This slackness on the part of the respondents to
decide the representation of the petitioner renders the
impugned order of detention illegal.
17. Viewed in the aforesaid context, the impugned order
of detention becomes unsustainable in law and the same is
accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to release
the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided
he is not required in connection with any other case.
17. The petition stands allowed in the above terms.
The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
20.02.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: No
HCP No. 84/2025 Page 6 of 6
