Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shokat Ali Aged-21 Yrs vs Ut Of J&K Through on 5 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 111/2025
Reserved on: 26.02.2026
Pronounced on: 05.03.202626.02.2026
Uploaded on: 05.03.2023.02.2026.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced-Full
Shokat Ali Aged-21 Yrs. .....Appellant/petitioner(s)
S/O Nazir Din
R/O Ghatti Tehsil and District Kathua
Through :- Mr. Gagan Oswal, Advocate.
v/s
1. UT of J&K through .....Respondent(s)
Principal Secretary, Department of Home,
J&K Government, Civil Secretariat/Jammu.
2. District Magistrate, Kathua
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua
4. Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot
Bhalwal, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Challenge in this petition has been thrown to a detention order No. PSA
168 of 2025, dated 25.06.2025, issued by respondent no. 2-District Magistrate
Kathua, vide which petitioner came to be detained, under Section 8 of J&K
Public Safety Act, 1978 [“PSA”] and lodged in Central Jail Kot Bhalwal,
Jammu.
02. Background facts of the case are that Senior Superintendent of Police,
Kathua, describing the petitioner as a desperate character, habitually indulging
in the smuggling of bovine animals, submitted a dossier and connected
documents to District Magistrate Kahtua [“the detaining authority”] for his
detention.
03. The dossier elaborated four FIRs against the petitioner viz., FIR No.
163/2022 U/S 188 IPC, 11 PC Act of P.S Ghagwal, FIR No. 12/2023 u/s 188
IPC, 11 PC Act of P/S Lakhanpur, FIR No. 27/2023 u/s 188 IPC, 11 PC Act of
P/S Rajbagh & FIR No. 53/2025 u/s 331(4) 305 BNS P/S Rajbagh. It was also
alleged that on 27.04.2025, Sh. Karan Singh, Lamberdar and Sh. Prithpaul
Singh, Sarpanch of Halqa Panchayat had confirmed that petitioner was
repeatedly involved in bovine smuggling and theft cases. It was alleged that
petitioner was not only involved in organized crime but he also had close
association/links with hardcore/notorious criminals and his activities created a
sense of insecurity and terror in the area, with potential to disturb public order
and communal harmony.
04. Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order inter alia on the following
grounds:-
(a) Because the petitioner is an illiterate as already stated in the
dossier and the grounds of detention were neither read over to
the petitioner nor the petitioner was made to understand the
same in the language which he understands as the petitioner
understands only “Gojri” and further no copy of these
documents were provided to the petitioner in the language
which petitioner understands.
(b) Because no copy of FIR and other documents including the
Bail orders have been served upon the petitioner because only
detention order has been served, therefore, in absence of the
documents as relied upon by the detaining authority, the
applicant has been deprived of making effective representation,
therefore, the order impugned is illegal and deserves to be
revoked.
(c) Because the petitioner has been detained on the basis of false
and frivolous FIRs registered against the petitioner but the
offences mentioned above are not covered under Section 8 of
J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and in the absence of the same the
HCP 111/2025 2
impugned detention order is bad in eyes of law and is required
to be revoked.
(d) Because impugned order has been passed the on the ground of
involvement of the petitioner in FIR’S with respect to which the
petitioner has already been enlarged on bail which have no
foundation and as such, the order impugned is bad in law and
deserves to be revoked.
e) Because the detaining authority has refused to consider the
representation of the petitioner and further no time limit has
been communicated to the petitioner within which he was
supposed to make a representation to the detaining authority
and on this ground also the detention order is required to be
quashed.
(e) Because the petitioner has been detained on the basis of false
and frivolous FIRs registered against the petitioner and that
the grounds of detention are verbatim repeat of dossier of SSP,
Jammu without adding something in the dossier and therefore
on this ground also the detention order is required to quashed.
(f) Because no satisfaction has been recorded by your goodself
that the normal punitive law has failed to prevent the illegal
activities of the applicant which renders necessary the issuance
of detention order, as such, the order impugned is bad in law.
(g) Because the detaining authority by virtue of the detention order
dated 25.06.2025 bearing PSA No. 168 has detained the
petitioner but as per the order one Kamal @ Kaka S/o
Manohar Lal R/o Khanpur Tehsil and District Pathankot was
required to be detained and therefore order impugned is bad in
law and is therefore required to be quashed.
05. It is contention of the petitioner that he made a representation to the
respondents for revocation of the impugned order of his detention, but
respondents refused to consider his representation.
06. Countervailing the stand of the petitioner, ex adverso, respondents are
affront with the contention that none of the legal, constitutional and statutory
right of the petitioner has been violated and impugned order came to be passed
by the detaining authority after due consideration of the dossier submitted by
SSP Kathua, because petitioner was continuously and repeatedly involved in
criminal activities, particularly smuggling of bovine animals over the past
HCP 111/2025 3
several years, which is highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and
tranquility. According to the respondents, the material relied upon, including
four FIRs, showed a continuous pattern of conduct on the part of the petitioner,
thereby threatening law and order.
07. It is contention of the respondents that grounds of detention, detention
warrant and all relevant documents, comprising of 47 leaves, were not only
supplied to the petitioner but also read over and explained to him in his
language against a proper receipt duly signed by him. The petitioner and his
father were informed by the detaining authority about the detention order and
grounds on which it was issued. He was also informed about his right to make
representation to the Government against the detention order, if he so desired.
Respondent no. 2 received a representation on behalf of the detenu through his
mother, namely Kali Begum, on 13.08.2025, which was forwarded to Principle
Secretary, Home Department, vide letter dated 14.08.2025, with a copy to SSP
Kathua for intimation. The Home Department, vide order dated 01.09.2025, has
intimated that representation of the petitioner was considered and was found
without merit. This communication is stated to have been endorsed to
Superintendent Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, with a direction to inform the
detenu regarding disposal of the representation and Senior Superintendent,
Central Jail, Jammu, vide his communication dated 11.09.2025 addressed to the
Home, intimated that disposal of the representation had been communicated to
the detenu on 01.09.2025.
08. It is the contention of the respondents that since action taken against the
petitioner in the past under substantive laws did not prove fruitful in deterring
him from indulging in anti-social activities, therefore, for the maintenance of
public order, it was deemed fit to detain him under the provisions of PSA.
HCP 111/2025 4
According to the respondents, on the basis of objective and dispassionate
assessment of a clear and consistent pattern in the criminal activities carried out
by the petitioner, the detaining authority has come to an inescapable conclusion
that there was no likelihood of the detenu being dissuaded from indulging in
similar activities. Therefore, it is contended that detention of the petitioner has
been ordered after due consideration of the dossier received from the sponsoring
authority-SSP Kathua and, keeping in view the gravity of the situation, the
petitioner came to be detained under PSA. The respondents have prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
09. Heard arguments and perused the detention record.
10. Mr. Oswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon a host of
pronouncements of this Court including Muskan Ali vs. UT of J&K & Ors.
(HCP No. 72/2024), Zaffar Ahmed vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (HCP No.
66/2024), Hamid Mohd. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (HCP No. 04/2024),
Tanveer Hamed @ Jimmy vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (WP (Crl) 87/2022) and
Yaqoob Hussain vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (HCP No. 112/2025) to reiterate the
grounds urged in the memo of petition.
11. At the foremost, petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order on the
ground that neither all the relevant documents, including copies of FIRs and bail
orders, were furnished to him so as to enable him to make an effective
representation, nor the dossier and grounds of detention were read over and
explained to him in Gojri language which he understands.
12. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have taken a clear stand that
not only relevant documents/material were provided to the petitioner against
proper receipt, but documents were also read over and explained to him in his
language which he fully understood, and he was informed about his right to
HCP 111/2025 5
make a representation, with respect to which he put his signatures in
acknowledgement.
13. A perusal of the detention record would also show that upon execution of
the impugned order, 47 leaves of documents came to be supplied to the
petitioner against proper receipt. They are stated to have been read over and
explained to him in Hindi/Urdu language, which he understood, and his
signatures as a token of acknowledgement have been obtained. The petitioner
and his father were informed about the detention order and the grounds on
which it came to be issued against him. He was also informed about his right to
make representation to the Government against the detention order, if he so
desired. Pertinently, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to refute the stand
of the respondents that entire relevant material was furnished to him, relevant
documents were read over and explained to him in his language and he was
informed about his constitutional right to make his representation.
14. Since respondents, in their counter affidavit, have denied allegations of
the petitioner that entire relevant material was not supplied to him, same was not
read over and explained to him in his language and he was informed about his
right to make an effective representation, it was incumbent upon the petitioner
to rebut the stand of the respondents/detaining authority by filing a rejoinder
affidavit, which he not chosen to do. In these circumstances, categoric stand of
the respondents that not only relevant documents were provided to him, but
same were read over and explained to the petitioner in his language, remains
unrebutted. It thus implies that detaining authority and the executing officer, in
this respect have scrupulously adhered to the statutory requirements and
constitutional obligations on their part.
HCP 111/2025 6
15. Another ground urged by the petitioner and his counsel is that he came to
be detained on the basis of false and frivolous FIRs for offences which,
according to him, are not covered under Section 8 PSA, and in all the said FIRs,
he has already been enlarged on bail.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that since
petitioner was enlarged on bail by the competent court in all the FIRs alleged
against him and, prosecution never filed any application for cancellation of bail
extended in his favour by the concerned courts from time to time, recourse to
PSA by the detaining authority is illegal.
17. It is a settled proposition of law that power of preventive detention is
precautionary in nature and can be exercised on reasonable apprehension and it
may or may not relate to an offence. It is also trite that basis of a detention order
is the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding reasonable probability of
the detenu indulging in activities similar to his past conduct and to prevent him
from reoffending.
18. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is habitually indulging in
criminal activities of bovine smuggling. Four FIRs registered against him for
similar offences relating to bovine smuggling failed to deter him. He was not
only involved in organized crime but he also had close association/links with
hardcore and notorious criminals. Therefore, taking into account his past
activities, the detaining authority found it imperative to detain the petitioner
with a view to prevent him from indulging in similar activities.
19. A five judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors; (1975) 3 SCC 198, in a similar fact situation, has
held that preventive detention has nothing to do with the commission of an
offence by the detenu or any prosecution against him. It is clearly ruled by the
HCP 111/2025 7
Apex Court that preventive detention can be ordered before or during the
prosecution and even with or without prosecution of a criminal case against the
detenu. It can be made in anticipation. Preventive detention can be ordered even
after discharge or acquittal of an accused. The position of law crystallized in
Haradhan Saha is that pendency of a criminal case is no bar to order
preventive detention and Article 14, in such cases, takes a back seat because
preventive detention and prosecution are not synonymous.
Relevant excerpt captured in Paras 32 to 34 of the judgment for the ease
of reference is extracted below:-
“32. The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive
detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power
exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence.
It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it
relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have
been launched. An order of preventive detention may be, made before or
during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or
without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal.
The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An
order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution.
33. Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive detention and prosecution
are not synonymous. The purposes are different. The authorities are
different. The nature of proceedings is different. In a prosecution an accused
is sought to be punished for a past act. In preventive detention, the past act is
merely the material for inference about the future course of probable conduct
on the part of the detenu.
34. The recent decisions of this Court on this subject are many. The decisions
in Borjahan Gorey v. State of W. B., Ashim Kumar Ray V. State of W. B.;
Abdul Aziz V. District Magistrate, Burdwan and Debu Mahato V. State of W.
B. correctly lay down the principles to be followed as to whether a detention
order is valid or not. The decision in Biram Chand v. State of U. P. which is a
Division Bench decision of two learned Judges is contrary to the other Bench
decisions consisting in each case of three learned Judges. The principles
which can be broadly stated are these. First, merely because a detenu is liable
to be tried in a criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence or to
be proceeded against for preventing him from committing offences dealt with
in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not by itself debar
the Government from taking action for his detention under the Act. Second,
the fact that the Police arrests a person and later on enlarges him on bail and
initiates steps to prosecute him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and
even lodges a first information report may be no bar against the District
Magistrate issuing an order under the preventive detention. Third, where the
concerned person is actually in jail custody at the time when an order of
detention is passed against him and is not likely to be released for a fair
length of time, it may be possible to contend that there could be no
HCP 111/2025 8
satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the likelihood of such
a person indulging in activities which would jeopardise the security of the
State or the public order. Fourth, the mere circumstance that a detention
order is passed during the pendency of the prosecution will not violate the
order. Fifth, the order of detention is a precautionary measure. It is based on
a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past
conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances.”
20. Pertinently, a similar view was expressed earlier by another constitutional Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Bombay vs. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya; AIR
1951 SC 157.
21. An identical view has been taken by Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar
Goyal vs. Union of India; (2005) 8 SCC 276:- wherein it was observed as under
“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.”
22. The aforesaid enunciation further came to be reiterated with approval by
the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad; AIR 2019 SC
3248.
23. In view of aforesaid observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case law
relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, is not attracted.
24. It is manifest from the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court that
pendency of prosecution against a detenu is no bar for the detaining authority to
pass an order of preventive detention, and even discharge or acquittal of the
detenu in a criminal case against him does not preclude the detaining authority
from invoking precautionary jurisdiction under the preventive detention laws.
Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that criminal
HCP 111/2025 9
prosecution could not be circumvented or subverted by resort to preventive
detention is legally flawed for the simple reason that purpose of preventive
detention is different from criminal prosecution. Discharge or acquittal or grant
of bail to a detenu operates in different fields. In a criminal prosecution, it is
proof beyond reasonable doubt which is a paramount consideration, whereas in
cases of preventive detention what is necessary is subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority that ordinary law of the land had failed to prevent and deter
the detenu from indulging in similar activities. In preventive detention cases, the
past act of the detenu serves as a material for drawing an inference about the
future course of his probable conduct, as held by the Apex Court in Haradhan
Saha. Therefore, preventive detention of a detenu cannot be held illegal merely
because detenu has been bailed out in criminal cases against him and
prosecution failed to move the concerned court for cancellation of his bail. If the
object of detention is to prevent a habitual offender from re-offending in future,
which may tend to create a law and order problem or disturb the public order
and communal harmony, resort to preventive detention is perfectly justified.
25. The next ground urged by the petitioner is that grounds of detention are
verbatim repetition of the dossier of SSP Jammu and detaining authority failed
to record its subjective satisfaction that alleged activities of the petitioner are
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This contention of the petitioner
is found specious and misconceived.
26. The details of multiple FIRs against the petitioner, with clear reference to
his past activities in the dossier as also in the grounds of detention, in fact
reflects manifest awareness and application of mind on the part of the detaining
authority before it embarked to pass the impugned order. It is apparent from the
grounds of detention that respondent no. 2-the detaining authority passed the
HCP 111/2025 10
impugned order on reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the
petitioner based on his past conduct and in the light of attending circumstances
of the case.
27. High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, has a very limited scope to
examine the grounds of detention and sufficiency of the material relied by the
detaining authority. It cannot sit in appeal and final fault with the subjective
satisfaction derived by the detaining authority and substitute its own opinion
when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent and proximate. It is
exclusive domain of the administration to ensure the maintenance of public
peace and tranquility. The subjective satisfaction drawn by the detaining
authority that ordinary law of the land has not proved sufficient to deter the
detenu from indulging in repeated anti-social activities is not open to objective
scrutiny by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
28. Another ground urged by the petitioner to assail the impugned order is
that detaining authority refused to consider his representation. However, a
perusal of the record reveals that respondent No. 2 received a representation on
behalf of the petitioner through his mother, namely, Kali Begum on 13.08.2025,
which was immediately forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Home, on the next
day, i.e., 14.08.2025. The Home Department, vide order dated 01.09.2025,
intimated that representation preferred by the petitioner was considered and was
found without merit. The Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu, vide his
communication dated 11.09.2025, intimated the Home Department that disposal
of the representation was communicated to the petitioner on 01.09.2025 itself.
The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have not only denied the allegation
of the petitioner that they refused to consider his representation but placed on
record sufficient material to assert that representation filed on behalf of the
HCP 111/2025 11
petitioner was duly considered and decision was conveyed to him by the Senior
Superintendent of the concerned jail. The detention record belies the allegation
of the petitioner that respondents refused to consider his representation. The
record, rather bears testimony to the fact that representation, preferred on behalf
of the petitioner has been duly considered.
29. At last but not the least, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention of this Court to the impugned order, by virtue of which, though one
Kamal @ Kaka S/o Manohar Lal, R/o Khanpur, Tehsil and District Pathankot,
has been directed to be detained in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, but
petitioner, Shokat Ali has been taken into detention. According to learned
counsel for the petitioner, this is a case of non-application of mind on the part of
the detaining authority.
30. If the impugned order of detention is carefully gone through, as a whole it
is evident that detaining authority has recorded the satisfaction that petitioner is
a hardcore criminal who has indulged in a number of criminal activities, such as
smuggling of bovine animals from District Kathua, and that his remaining at
large involves a greater risk to the maintenance of public order, therefore, it
was, considered necessary to detain him on the basis of grounds enclosed as
Annexure-I. However, in the concluding para of the order, one Kamal @ Kaka
has been directed to be detained. There appears to be a typographical mistake. A
perusal of the detention record reveals that the detaining authority has issued a
corrigendum on 30.06.2025 that “name of the subject being detained may kindly
be read as Shokat Ali S/o Nazir Din R/o Ghatti Tehsil and District Kathua in
Para 3rd, line 3rd”. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be quashed on this
technical ground alone.
HCP 111/2025 12
31. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order of detention. The grounds of detention, on the basis of which
impugned order came to be passed, are found definite and unambiguous. The
petitioner was informed about the grounds of detention with sufficient clarity in
the language which he fully understood. What weighed with the detaining
authority while passing the impugned order were the past activities and the facts
and figures detailed therein, on the basis of which the detaining authority came
to the conclusion that petitioner was required to be placed under preventive
detention in order to prevent him from indulging in similar activities.
32. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is dismissed and impugned
order is upheld.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
JAMMU
05.03.2026.
Abinash
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes
HCP 111/2025 13