Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mubashar Rashid Th. Razia vs Ut Of J And K Th. Commissioner on 27 February, 2026
Serial No. 1
Suppl Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
HCP 85/2025 CM 3673/2025
Pronounced on 27.02.2026.
Uploaded on: 27.02.2026
Mubashar Rashid Th. Razia
Begum ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
Vs.
UT of J and K Th. Commissioner
Secretary to Government, Home
Department Jammu and Others
...Respondent(s).
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Impugned in the instant petition, filed under the provisions of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner through his mother
is an order of detention bearing No. DMR/PSA/06 of 2025 dated:
22.05.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Detaining Authority’ for short), while invoking his powers under Section
8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), whereby the petitioner has been ordered
to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and lodged in the District
Jail, Amphalla Jammu. The petitioner has assailed the impugned detention
order on the grounds, inter alia, that he is a citizen of India and a domicile
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |1
of UT of Jammu and Kashmir, as such, within his rights to seek theenforcement of his constitutional as well as other legal/statutory rights; that
he is a young boy of the age of 20 years and a permanent resident of
Rajouri who has been falsely branded as a habitual criminal and a drug
peddler for managing his prevention detention; that the impugned detention
order has not been passed on any proximate or compelling necessity but on
generalized and unverified allegations; that the grounds of detention reflect
his involvement in two case FIR’s and three General Dairy Entries out of
which one case is pending trial, one is pending investigation when the
General Dairy Entries are all unverified; that the ld. Detaining Authority
has mechanically acted on the police dossier without conducting any
independent verification or otherwise applying its own mind in respect of
the matter; that even if the allegations against him are supposed to be true
for arguments sake, they still pertain to law and order violations and not to
acts prejudicial to public order as alleged; that he has also submitted a
representation before the learned Advisory Board constituted under PSA
challenging his detention which was not addressed; that he was not
furnished with the complete set of the detention record which has made
him unable to make a timely representation against his detention order;
that his detention is punitive in nature and camouflaged as preventive; that
the impugned detention order is vitiated by procedural irregularities,
absence of subjective satisfaction and colourable exercise of power by the
Detaining Authority which make the same unconstitutional, illegal and
liable to be set aside; that he has been wrongly branded as a history sheeter
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |2
without his knowledge; that the grounds of detention are the verbatim of
police dossier thereby indicating the non-application of mind by the learned
Detaining Authority and that his illegal and unjustified detention
tantamounts to the infringement of his Fundamental Right to Life and
Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The respondents through their counter affidavit filed by the learned
Detaining Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 resisted the instant petition on
the grounds that none of the legal, fundamental or statutory rights of the
petitioner have been infringed and the petition is utterly misconceived,
false and frivolous deserving its dismissal. That the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Rajouri, vide his communication No. PA/PSA/2025/9667-70/C
dated 06.05.2025 forwarded a dossier of activities to the answering
respondent i.e. the Detaining Authority, making out a case for detention of
the petitioner being hardened criminal in the area. That petitioner/detenue
has a dangerous and aggressive nature, who is involved in the repeated acts
of theft and other illegal activities that disturb the public order and
endanger the lives and property of local citizens. That he has been involved
in several theft cases and shows no respect for the law. That criminal
behavior of the petitioner is becoming more serious and the general public
lives in constant fear because of his criminal activities. The he is the real
brother of a known drug smuggler namely Haroon Rashid. That he himself
is deeply involved in the sale and purchase of narcotic substances which
has the tendency of targeting the youth and destroying their future. That his
criminal and anti-social activities are creating a serious law and order
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |3
problem in the entire district. That his actions have also become a major
threat to public peace, safety and security. That he is a habitual trouble
creator and has been posing threat to the maintenance of public law and
order. That two FIR’s stand registered against the petitioner. That besides
General Dairy Entry No. 12 dated; 08.09.2024, Entry No. 10 dated:
12.04.2025 and Entry No. 10 dated: 23.04.2025 stand maintained with the
Police Station, Rajouri, regarding his illegal activities. That despite
registration of the aforesaid two FIR’s against the petitioner, he did not
mend his behaviour and is adamant to carry on criminal/anti-social
activities which left no alternative with the answering respondent but to
invoke the provisions of Public Safety Act in the large public interest. That
the answering respondent was aware that the petitioner/detenue is already
involved in substantive offences, but keeping in view his activities which
were highly prejudicial to the public law and order, the detenue was booked
under Public Safety Act, strictly as per the provisions of the same. That the
answering respondent after thoroughly perusing the contents of the dossier
and ground reports so received was satisfied that in view of the volatile
nature of the petitioner and his repeated tendency to commit illegal
activities prejudicial to the public order, recourse to normal laws may
provide an opportunity to the petitioner to propagate his nefarious designs
of creating enmity between people leading to disturbance in public order.
That the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases: (i). FIR No. 1/2024
under Sections 354, 323, 341, 506, 382 IPC; (ii). FIR No. 481/2024 under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 307, 191 both registered at Police Station Rajouri.
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |4
That besides the aforesaid FIR’s, General Dairy Reports vide GD No. 10
dated: 12.04.2025, GD No. 12 dated: 08.09.2024 and GD No. 10 dated:
23.04.2025 entered in the records at Police Station, Rajouri, with regard to
the involvement of the petitioner in criminal/anti-social activities and also
his activities indicating his involvement in sale and purchase of narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances in the town. That the whole of the
material relied upon by the answering respondent has been furnished to the
petitioner and also read over and explained to him in the Dogri and Hindu
language which he understood fully and in token of which his signature
was obtained. That moreover the petitioner/detenue was informed that he
can make a representation to the Government as well as the Detaining
authority against his detention. That all the statutory requirements and
constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the
answering respondent. That the petitioner filed a detailed representation
before the Government which was considered and found without merit.
That the petitioner is operating in a secret and systematic manner actively
working to establish and expand the criminal network. That he belongs to a
family with a criminal background which further supports and facilitates
his unlawful actions. That despite being arrested in previous cases, he has
not shown any inclination to reform and instead he has resumed his
criminal behaviour immediately after release, continuing to act in a way
that is detrimental to the maintenance of public order. That the detention
order in question has been passed by the answering respondent upon proper
application of his mind on the basis of the record before him.
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |5
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in the matter.
4. The learned counsel Mr. Sarfaraz Hamid Rather, Advocate, while
reiterating the stand already taken in the petition contended that the
impugned detention order is the outcome of illegality and incorrectness for
being devoid of non-application of mind and subjective satisfaction on the
part of the ld. Detaining Authority. He contended that petitioner is alleged
to be involved in two criminal cases bearing FIR No. 1/2024 and FIR No.
481/2024 both registered at Police Station, Rajouri. He submitted that as
themselves admitted by the respondents 2 and 3 as per the grounds of
detention and the dossier respectively, the case FIR No. 1/2024 came to be
registered with the Police Station, Rajouri, on 01.01.2024 on the complaint
of one Parveen Akhter W/O. Arif Hussain, R/O. Malik Market, Rajouri,
who alleged her being assaulted by the petitioner/detenue with further
allegations that he snatched a gold chain from her neck and, thereafter,
threatened her of serious consequences. That the case FIR came to be
registered under Sections 354, 382,323, 506 IPC. That the said case FIR
has culminated into the filing of a final report/challan which is pending
trial. He further contended that the other case FIR 481/2024 of the same
Police Station, Rajouri, came to be registered on 04.11.2024 against the
petitioner/detenue on the complaint of one Mehnaz Kouser W/O. Mohd
Arif R/O. Malyari Mohalla, Rajouri, who alleged that while she and her
husband were returning home to Malik Market Rajouri, the accused
persons including the petitioner/detenue stopped them and started beating
them. That as a result both sustained serious injuries. That accused also
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |6
snatched her gold chain, a mobile phone and Rs. 6,000/- in cash. The said
case FIR is still reported to be under investigation. The learned counsel
further submitted that the General Dairy Entries alleged to have been
recorded in the same Police Station pertain to the allegations of illicit
trafficking of Narcotic Drugs by the petitioner without any sort of
verification. He contended that the General Dairy Entries cannot be relied
upon for want of corroboration.
The learned counsel very vehemently contended that the ld.
Detaining Authority has misused its power vested in it under the Act by
ordering the prevention detention of the petitioner on the allegation of his
criminal activities which may amount to infraction of General Law and
Order and not disorder in the society. He contended that none of the
allegations/involvements amount to breach of public order as defined under
Section 8(3) of the Act. He further submitted that it is well settled by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that there lies a marked
distinction between the acts amounting to breach of law and order and the
acts prejudicial to the social order.
The learned counsel also contended that the detention record in its
entirety especially the grounds of detention, the Police Dossier and the
documents regarding criminal cases were not furnished to him which
amounts to the violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India read with Section 13 of the Act.
The learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of
the case, it is quite clear that the detention of the petitioner is apparently
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |7
illegal, as not being justified under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.
He contended that the impugned detention order is the outcome of non-
application of mind on the part of ld. Detaining Authority.
5. The leaned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments
placed reliance on the authoritative judgments cited as, “Ankit Ashok
Jallan vs. Union of India and Ors (2020) 19 SCC 127″, “Khairul
Haque, vs. State of West Bengal AIR Online 1969 SC 177″,
“Jayanarain Sukul vs. State of West Bengal 1970 (1) SCC 219, “Dr.
Rahmantullah vs. State of Bihar and Another AIR 1981 SC 2069″,
“Ishfaq Amin Bhat vs. UT of J and K and Ors 2021 Crl L J (NOC) 686
J&K”.
The learned counsel for the petitioner sought the quashment of the
impugned detention. Order.
6. Per contra, the ld. UT Counsel submitted that the petition is liable to
be dismissed as none of the constitutional or any other statutory rights of
the petitioner have been infringed by the respondents. He submitted that the
detention order impugned in the petition has been passed on the due
application of mind by the ld. Detaining Authority who was satisfied on the
basis of the record of the dossier and the field inputs gathered by him that
the activities of the petitioner are likely to endanger and threaten the public
order. He contended that despite earlier registration of criminal cases
against the petitioner and his being bailed out in the said cases, he did not
mend his character but continued to indulge in criminal activities especially
targeting women. He further contended that the object of the detention
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |8
under the act is preventive rather than punitive and is aimed at to debar an
individual beforehand from indulging in activities prejudicial to the public
order. He further contended that there is a close proximity between the
illegal activities of the petitioner/detenue and the passing of the detention
order as the illegal activities as covered in the case FIR’s and the General
Dairy Reports spread over a period from 01.01.2024 to 23.04.2025. The ld.
State Counsel further contended that the petitioner/detenue who is of the
age of about 26 years is known as hardened criminal in the area, who has
been involved in a series of theft cases and has no respect for law. That his
criminal behaviour is becoming more serious and the general public lives in
constant fear because of his actions. That he is the real brother of One-
Haroon Rashid, a known drug smuggler.
The learned UT counsel further contended that the copies of the
detention record in entirety were furnished to the petitioner/detenue who
has acknowledged the receipt of the same at the time of his detention. That
he was also informed of the grounds of detention in the language
understood by him with further information that he has a right to make a
representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Government. The
ld. UT Counsel in support of his arguments placed reliance on the
judgments cited as “Sarkar Jay Ram Manohar vs. State of Bihar“, Kuldas
Vs. State HCP No. 224/1988 decided on 26.05.1988”, “Firdous Ahmad
Sofi vs. State and Ors LPA No. 162/2007″.
7. I have perused the instant petition, the reply affidavit and have also
gone through the detention record produced by the ld. UT Counsel.
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |9
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid perusal and the consideration of the
rival arguments advanced on both the sides in the light of law on the
subject, this Court is of the opinion that a ground is made out for interfering
with the impugned detention order as the same suffers from patent
illegality, misuse of power and non-application of mind on the part of the
detaining authority.
9. The main issues for redressal in the instant case are:
I. Whether the allegations against the petitioner culminating into
registration of two Case FIR’s and three General Dairy Reports have
the tendency to be prejudicial to the social order and if the answer is in
the negative, whether the impugned detention order suffers from non-
application of mind?
II. Whether there is proximity between the alleged activities and the
object for passing of the impugned detention order?
10. Taking the first issue for determination, the Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case is of the opinion that although the criminal acts
of petitioner which have culminated into the registration of two case FIR’s
one of them presently under trial and the other one under investigation, no
doubt, amount to infraction of law and order by falling within the definition
of relevant offences under IPC/BNS, yet the same have not the implication
of disturbing the ‘social order’. The Police Station Rajouri has already filed
a final report/challan in one of the case FIRs when the other FIR is reported
to be under investigation. The said case FIR’s pertain to the alleged
occurrences of 01.01.2024 and 04.11.2024. The allegations in the said
FIR’s as hereinbefore also mentioned relate to law and order issue and not
to public order, the three General Dairy Entries dated 08.09.2024,
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |10
12.04.2025 and 23.04.2025 recorded by Police Station Rajouri are
regarding the allegations of activities of the petitioner to the effect of his
dealing in Narcotic Drugs by purchase and sale thereof. The said General
Dairy Entries without being substantiated/verified and being based on the
alleged information cannot be relied upon. The allegations under the
aforesaid two case FIR’S and three General Dairy Entries, even if supposed
to be true or proved at this stage, for arguments sake, yet they cannot be
amount to activities prejudicial to social order.
11. It is apt to reproduce the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act
which defines the social order for the purposes of Section 8(1)(a) of the
Act.
“8. Detention of certain persons
(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1)
[(a) omitted.
(b) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order” means –
(i) promoting, propagating or attempting to create, feelings
of enmity or hatred or disharmony on ground of religion, race,
caste, community, or region;
(ii) making preparations for using, or attempting to use, or
using, or instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise, abetting
the use of force where such preparation, using, attempting,
instigating, inciting, provoking or abetting, disturbs or is likely to
disturb public order;
(iii) attempting to commit, or committing, or instigating,
inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting the commission of,
mischief within the meaning of section 425 of the Ranbir Penal
Code where the commission of such mischief disturbs, or is
likely to disturb public order;
(iv) attempting to commit, or committing, or instigating,
inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting the commission of an
offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or
imprisonment of a term extending to seven years or more, where
the commission of such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb
public order;
[(c) “smuggling” in relation to timber or liquor means possessing
or carrying of illicit timber or liquor and includes any act which
will render the timber or liquor liable to confiscation under the
Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, Samvat, 1987 or under the
Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act, 1958, as the case may be;]
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |11
[(d) “timber” means timber of Fir, Kail, Chir or Deodar tree
whether in logs or cut up in pieces but does not include
firewood;]
[(e) “Liquor” includes all alcoholic beverages including beer]”.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a catena of judgments noted the
difference between, “law and order” and “public order”.
13. In Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709, it
was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court through Hon’ble M. Hidayatullah. J.
(as the Chief Justice then was) at para 54 as under: –
“54. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder.
Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When
two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public
disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law
and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were
disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of
rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal
passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises
the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be
imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but
before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the
community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and
order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for
action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which
subvert the public order are.”
14. In Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 98 again
Hon’ble M. Hidayatullah, (CJ) observed that it is not the every case of a
general disturbance to public tranquility which can be termed as public
disorder and the test to be applied in such cases is whether the alleged act
leads to the disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to
amount to disturbance of the public order. That if the alleged act affects
some individual or individuals leaving tranquility of the society
undisturbed, the act cannot be termed as amounting to public disorder. In
that case the petitioner/detenu was detained by an order of a district
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |12
magistrate since he had been indulging in teasing, harassing and molesting
young girls and assaults on individuals of a locality. While holding that the
conduct of the petitioner/detenu could be reprehensible, it was further held
that it (read: the offending act) does not add up to the situation where it
may be said that the community at large was being disturbed or in other
words there was a breach of public order or likelihood of a breach of public
order.
The observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case
at para 3 are reproduced as under:-
“3. Public order was said to embrace more of the community
than law and order. Public order is the even tempo of the life of
the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified
locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from
acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society
to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public
tranquility. It is the degree of disturbance and its affect upon the
life of the community in a locality which determines whether the
disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. … It is
always a question of degree of the harm and its affect upon the
community….This question has to be faced in every case on
facts. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished
from another.”
15. In Kuso Sah Vs. The State of Bihar (1974) 1 SCC 195, the
Hon’ble Apex Court through Hon’ble Y.V. Chandrachud, J. (as the Chief
Justice then was) speaking for the Bench held at paras 4 & 6 as under:-
“4. The two concepts have well defined contours, it being well
established that stray and unorganized crimes of theft and assault
are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the
even flow of public life. Infractions of law are bound in some
measure to lead to disorder but every infraction of law does not
necessarily result in public disorder.”
“6. The power to detain a person without the safeguard of a
court trial is too drastic to permit a lenient construction and
therefore Courts must be astute to ensure that the detainingHCP (85/2025) P a g e |13
authority does not transgress the limitations subject to which
alone the power can be exercised.”
16. There appears to be no proximity or live link between the alleged
incident of 04.11.2024 covered under the FIR No. 481/2024 of Police
Station Rajouri and the passing of the impugned detention order dated
22.05.2025. A period of over six months appears to have elapsed since the
last alleged incident dated 04.11.21024. The General Dairy Entries which
are admittedly uncorroborated and unverified even on the part of the Police
Station concerned cannot be considered so much so that to eclipse the most
valuable right of liberty of an individual.
Otherwise also irrespective of the proximity or live link between the
alleged last incident and the necessity for passing of the impugned
detention order, the alleged activities of the petitioner/detenue which
present a law and order situation to be taken care of under normal law
cannot warrant and justify the preventive detention on the pretext of
“public disorder”.
17. This Court in its opinion feels supplemented with the authoritative
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled “Rajinder Arora vs.
Union of India and Ors” AIR 2006(4) SCC 796, decided on 10th March,
2006. The relevant paras of the Judgment are reproduced as under: –
“The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarized thus:
The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person
necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the
time when the order is made or the live link between the
prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and
fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicableHCP (85/2025) P a g e |14
under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid
down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a
rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months
between the offending acts and the order of detention. However,
when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial
activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to
scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily
examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable
explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called
upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether
the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of
each case.
Similarly, when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained
delay between the date of order of detention and the date of
securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw
considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate
inference that the detaining authority was not really and
genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the
detenu with a view to preventing him from actin in a prejudicial
manner. ”
18. This Court in its opinion is also fortified with the authoritative
judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court passed in case titled “Rameshwar
Shaw Vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan and another“, AIR 1964 SC, 334,
the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder:
“In deciding the question as to whether it is necessary to detain a person,
the authority has to be satisfied that the said person if not detained may
act in a prejudicial manner and this conclusion can be reasonably reached
by the authority generally in light of evidence about past prejudicial
activities of the said person. When evidence is placed, the Detaining
Authority has to examine the said evidence and decide whether it is
necessary to detain the said person in order to prevent him from acting in a
prejudicial manner. Thus, it was held that the past conduct or antecedent
history of a person can be taken into account in making the detention
order and it is largely from prior events showing tendencies or inclinationsHCP (85/2025) P a g e |15
of a man that an inference could be drawn whether he is likely even in the
future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Further the past conduct or history of the person on which the authority
purports to act should ordinarily be proximate in point of time and should
have the rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the
person is necessary, that it would be irrational to take into account the
conduct of a person which took the place years before the date of
detention”.
19. The opinion of this Court is also supplemented by another
authoritative Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as “Sushanta
Kumar Banile Vs. State of Tripura & Ors“. AIR, 2022 SC 4175, in which,
it has been held that undue and unreasonable gap between the alleged
accusation and the passing of the detention order snaps the live link
between the two.
20. On the basis of the afore referred authoritative Judgments, this
Court is of the opinion that the Detaining Authority has not applied its
mind before passing the impugned detention order.
21. It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to address to
itself as to how the normal criminal law was inadequate to tackle the
petitioner who had been granted bail in the criminal cases registered against
him. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner/detenue had
violated the bail conditions nor is it their stand that they assailed the bail
orders but did not succeed and, therefore, they bonafidely invoked the
provisions of the Act to detain the petitioner with the view to prevent him
from repeating his alleged illegal activities of illicit trafficking in drugs.
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |16
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Rekha Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu through Secretary to Government and Anr” reported in (2011) 5 SCC
244 has laid emphasis on the fundamental right to life and personal liberty
of a citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution and
has, accordingly, stressed for taking great care and caution while passing
any preventive detention orders so that same are passed in case of genuine
and inevitable need only without any misuse or abuse of the powers.
23. The preventive detentions need to be passed with great care and
caution keeping in mind that a citizen’s most valuable and inherent human
right is being curtailed. The arrests in general and the preventive detentions
in particular are an exception to the most cherished fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The preventive
detentions are made on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority in relation to an apprehended conduct of the detenue by
considering his past activities without being backed by an immediate
complaint as in the case of the registration of the FIR and, as such, is a
valuable trust in the hands of the trustees. The provisions of Clauses (1)
and (2) of Article 22 of our Constitution are not applicable in the case of
preventive detentions. So, the provisions of Clause (5) of the Article 22 of
our Constitution, with just exception as mentioned in Clause (6), requiring
for application of mind, subjective satisfaction, inevitability of the
detention order, proper and prompt communication of the grounds of
detention and the information of liberty to make a representation against
the detention order, are the imperative and detention order.
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |17
24. For the foregoing discussion, the impugned order appears to be the
outcome of the non-application of mind and misuse of powers.
25. The petitioner/detenue has already suffered detention of 9 months
pursuant to the detention order.
26. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention
order bearing No. DMR/PSA/06 of 2025 dated: 22.05.2025 passed by the
respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Rajouri, is quashed with the
direction to the respondents to release the petitioner/detenue forthwith from
his preventive detention in the instant case.
27. The detention record is ordered to be returned back to the Office of
the ld. Sr. AAG Jammu against proper receipt.
28. Disposed of.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
27.02.2026
Shahid Manzoor
Whether the judgment is speaking Yes
Whether approved for reporting Yes
HCP (85/2025) P a g e |18