Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Chotu vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 9 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
Sr. No. 65
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 11/2026
Reserved on: 02.07.2026
Pronounced on: 09.07.2026
Uploaded on :- 09.07.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced : Full
Sandeep Kumar @ Chotu, Age 25 years .....Petitioner(s)
S/O Tarsem Lal,
R/O Village Chak Aslam,
Tehsil R S Pura,
District Jammu
through his mother Tripta Devi.
Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
v/s
1. Union Territory of J&K through .....Respondent(s)
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. District Magistrate, Jammu.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu.
4. Superintendent,
Central Jail, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. District Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter called ‘Detaining Authority’) in
exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act,
1978, passed the detention Order No.PSA-02 of 2026 dated 24.01.2026 (for
short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the detenue-Sandeep Kumar @
Chotu S/O Tarsem Lal R/O Chak Aslam, Tehsil R S Pura, District Jammu (for
short ‘detenue’) has been detained under preventive detention, with a view to
HCP No.11/2026 Page 1 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
prevent him for acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘public
order’.
2. The impugned detention order has been challenged through the medium
of the instant petition, being in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India read with Section 13(1) of the J&K Public Safety Act,
1978.
3. Petitioner contends that the Detaining Authority passed the impugned
detention order casually, mechanically and without there being due application
of mind; that the grounds of detention are a verbatim copy of the dossier
prepared by respondent No.3; that the grounds of detention, the order of
detention and dossier were not provided to the petitioner within the stipulated
period as prescribed under Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 and
whole of the material is not supplied to the petitioner, thereby, prevented the
petitioner in filing an effective and meaningful representation before the
Government; that the fate of representation submitted by the petitioner to
respondent No.1 was not communicated to the petitioner; that the detaining
authority has miserably failed to record subjective satisfaction before passing the
impugned detention order; that representation dated 02.02.2026 filed on behalf
of petitioner to respondent; that the respondents have challenged the bail orders
in two cases, but without waiting for the outcome of the applications seeking
cancellation of bail, they have passed the impugned detention order;. Lastly, it is
stated that the impugned detention order be set aside and the writ petition be
allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has
placed reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court in ‘Khairul Haque V. State
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
of West Bengal’ reported at AIROnline 1969 SC 177; ‘Jayanarayan Sukul v.
State of West Benga‘ reported at 1970 (1) SCC 219; ‘Haradhan Saha v. Madan
Lal Agarwala’ reported at (1975) 3 SCC 198; and Criminal Appeal
No.2189/2026 titled ‘Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Sunil Chain V. Union of India &
Ors‘ decided on 27.04.2026 and judgments passed by this court in the case of
‘Koushal Sharma V. UT of J&K & Ors‘ reported at JKJ ONLINE 91093 and
‘Nek Ram & Satnam V. UT of J&K & Ors’ reported at JKJ ONLINE 90441.
5. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter
affidavit of the detaining authority. In the counter affidavit, it has been
submitted that the impugned order of detention has been passed by the detaining
authority after carefully analyzing the dossier dated 20.01.2026 submitted by
SSP Jammu; that the detenue is a habitual criminal, who is involved in the
commission of various offences like attempt to murder, stabbing, kidnapping,
offences under the Arms Act and other serious crimes regarding which 13 FIRs
were registered against him, which make it imperative to detain him under
preventive detention; that the detention order is based on subjective satisfaction
of the detaining authority and the grounds of detention clearly reflect the
application of mind; that despite repeated invocation of ordinary criminal law,
the detenue has continued to indulge in unlawful activities, thereby
demonstrating the ineffectiveness of such measures; that the detaining authority
was satisfied that the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and that there was every likelihood of the detenue
continuing with such activities if he be let free; that the respondents have
supplied all the material to the detenue and have also read out and explained the
contents thereof in the language he understands; that he was also informed about
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
his right to make a representation to the Government as well as detaining
authority; that the representation filed by the detenue was duly considered and
rejected and result whereof was duly conveyed to the detenue through jail
authorities against proper receipt; that the respondents, in order to lend support
to their contentions, have produced the detention record.
6. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner on 02.05.2026
stating therein that a representation came to be filed against the detention order
before respondent No.1 on 02.02.2026, which was duly received by respondent
no.1 on 03.02.2026 and fate of the said representation was not made known to
the petitioner, however, the petitioner came to be informed by the jail authorities
that the representation submitted by him against his detention order before
respondent No.1 stands rejected by the Advisory Board vide its opinion dated
16.02.2026.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and perused the
detention record.
8. The detention record, as produced, reveals that the detenue was involved
in following cases registered at different Police Stations:-
1) FIR No. 08/2026; U/Secs 354-D/341/323 RPC;
2) FIR No.189/2020, U/Secs 307/341/147/148 IPC, 4/25 Arms Act;
4) FIR No.124/2021 U/Secs 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act;
5) FIR No.74/2022 U/Secs 341/323/382/34 IPC
8) FIR No.102/2023 U/Sec 4/25 Arms Act;
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
9) FIR No. 53/2025 U/Sec 351(3) BNS, 3/35 Arms Act;
10) FIR No.66/2025 U/Secs 109/126(2)/115(2)/191(2)/191(3)/111 BNS,
3/4/25 Arms Act;
11) FIR No.207/2025 U/Secs 126(2)/115(2)/191(2)/111 BNS, 4/25 Arms
Act;
12) FIR No. 208/2025 U/Secs 333/352/351(2)/191(2)/191(3)/111 BNS,
4/25 Arms Act; and
13) FIR No. 213/2025 U/Sec 262 BNS.
Involvement of the detenue in the aforementioned cases appears to have heavily
weighed with the detaining authority, while passing impugned detention order.
9. Although detenue has raised many grounds for assailing the impugned
order of detention, yet, during the course of arguments, his counsel restricted his
arguments to the contentions that:
i) That there is non application of mind by the detaining authority as
the grounds of detention are a verbatim copy of the dossier
prepared by sponsoring agency; and
ii) That grounds of detention, order of detention and dossier were not
provided to the petitioner within stipulated period as prescribed
under Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978;
iii) That the impugned order is passed without recording subjective
satisfaction by the detaining authority; and
iv) That representation filed by the petitioner before respondent no.1
was never considered and if considered, result whereof was not
communicated to the petitioner.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
10. On the contrary, Mr. P D Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing counsel for
the respondents while opposing the submissions of Mr. Jagpaul Singh appearing
counsel for the petitioner, would insist that the order under challenge has been
passed validly and legally against the petitioner and in the process, all legal,
statutory and constitutional provisions and guarantees stand fulfilled and
complied with. He would further submit that the representation of the petitioner
was considered rightly and a decision whereof also came to be conveyed to the
petitioner. He would further submit that since the representation of the petitioner
stands forwarded to the Advisory Board also being an authority competent to
consider the representation beside respondent No.1, the said consideration, can
said to be substantial compliance of the provision of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution and no prejudice, whatsoever, can be said to have been caused to
the petitioner on account of non consideration of his representation by
respondent No.2.
11. The contention raised by the petitioner that detenue has not been
supplied the material/other relevant documents on the basis thereof detention
order has been passed rendering the petitioner unable to make an effective
representation and that the same have not been read over and explained to him in
a language he understood appears to be specious as the perusal of the detention
record would show that upon execution of the impugned detention order, total
301 leaves of relevant documents came to be supplied to the detenue on the very
next day i.e. on 25.01.2026, against proper receipt and the same have been read
over in English and explained to the detenue in the languages Hindi/Dogri
understood by him. Thus, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not
sustainable.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
12. The ground relating to non-application of mind on the part of the
detaining authority as the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of dossier
submitted by the sponsoring agency, that has been urged by learned counsel for
the petitioner, is also without any substance. If we have a look at the dossier of
the sponsoring agency and the grounds of detention, the same by no means can
be stated to be in similar language. In the grounds of detention, the District
Magistrate has, after noticing the background facts, clearly recorded his
satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are highly prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. Even otherwise, mere fact that there is similarity in
the contents of the dossier and the grounds of detention does not necessarily
mean that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.
If from a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is otherwise shown that the
detaining authority has applied its mind to the material for recording its
satisfaction and has recorded its subjective satisfaction as to the imperative need
of passing the order of detention, similarity in the language of dossier and the
grounds of detention would pale into insignificance because mere reproduction
does not necessarily prove non-application of mind by the detaining authority. In
this regard, I am fortified by the judgment dated 01.04.2024 of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Jahangir Ahmad Wani vs. UT of J&K (LPA
No.124/2023).
13. So far as the contention raised by the petitioner that his representation
was not considered nor its result communication to him is concerned, perusal of
the detention record would show that the State government vide communicated
dated 20.02.2026 informed the District Magistrate, Jammu about the disposal of
the representation in question and sent a copy to Superintendent, Central Jail
Jammu with the direction to inform the petitioner regarding the disposal of the
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
representation filed by the petitioner to respondent No.1 against proper receipt.
The Sr. Superintendent Central Jail Jammu has sent receipt of disposal of
representation on 26.02.2026 to the Principal Secretary, Home Department,
J&K, along with acknowledgement receipt which bears signatures of the
petitioner countersigned by Sr. Superintendent Central Jail, Jammu which
unequivocally proves that the result of the representation was conveyed to the
petitioner. Hence the said contention of the petitioner that he was not informed
about the disposal of the representation pales into insignificance.
14. The detaining authority, before invoking the preventive detention,
discussed various grounds for detention, incorporating that the detenue has been
involved in offences of a violent nature, including armed assaults, attempts on
human life, use of deadly weapons, kidnapping, house trespass, intimidation,
narcotic trafficking, and attacks on public servants and is facing charges for the
aforementioned cases and as many as 13 FIRs bearing FIR Nos.08/2016,
189/2020, 93/2021, 124/2021, 74/2022, 15/2023, 72/2023, 102/2023, 53/2025,
66/2025, 207/2025, 208/2025 & 213/2025 have been registered against the
detenue; that the detenue’s repeated behavior has caused significant harm to the
local community and society as a whole; that the detenue is a habitual offender
whose repeated involvement in criminal activities demonstrates that the existing
substantive laws have been insufficient in deterring or curbing his unlawful
conduct; that the detenue poses a substantial threat to the peace and stability of
society; that the detenue’s repeated involvement in unlawful activities continues
to disturb public order and contributes to growing unrest and disorder within the
community. It is further asserted in the record that if he is released from custody,
he may again indulge in such criminal/unlawful activities. The aforestated
reasons persuaded the Detaining Authority to detain the detenue in preventive
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
detention in order to cub his activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order.
15. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more
important that the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for
this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the
Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial,
which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanizing the harsh
authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of law,
the drastic power to detain a person without trial for ‘security of the State’
and/or ‘maintenance of public order’ must be strictly construed. However, where
individual liberty comes into conflict with the interest of the security of the State
or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger
interest of the nation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v.
Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 1983) held as under:
“The court has always regarded personal liberty as the most
precious possession of mankind and refused to tolerate illegal
detention, regardless of the social cost involved in the release of a
possible renegade.
This is an area where the court has been most strict and
scrupulous in ensuring observance with the requirements of the
law, and even where a requirement of the law is breached in the
slightest measure, the court has not hesitated to strike down the
order of detention or to direct the release of the detenue even
though the detention may have been valid till the breach
occurred.”
16. Right of personal liberty is a most precious right guaranteed under
the Constitution of India. A person is not to be deprived of his personal
liberty, except in accordance with procedures established under law and
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
the procedure as laid down in the case “Maneka Gandhi vs. 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 is convicted of
an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial
on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty
owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to
defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to
bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still
has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the
charge and also adduce evidence in his defense.
17. Framers of the Constitution, however, 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 being held guilty
of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim
and object are to save 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 plans, exposing general public to risk and
causing colossal damage to life and property. It is, for that reason,
necessary to take preventive measures and prevent a person bent upon to
perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22(5) of
the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of
preventive detention law.
18. Referring to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court in the case of ‘The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157′ would be advantageous. Paragraph 5
of the said judgment lays law on the point, which is profitable to be
reproduced hereunder:
“5. It has to be borne in mind that the legislation in
question is not an emergency legislation. The powers of
preventive detention under this Act of 1950 are in
addition to those contained in the Criminal Procedure
Code, where preventive detention is followed by an
inquiry or trial. By its very nature, preventive detention
is aimed at preventing the commission of an offence or
preventing the detained person from achieving a certain
end. The authority making the order therefore cannot
always be in possession of full detailed information
when it passes the order and the information in its
possession may fall far short of legal proof of any
specific offence, although it may be indicative of a
strong probability of the impending commission of a
prejudicial act. Section a of the Preventive Detention
Act therefore requires that the Central Government or
the State Government must be satisfied with respect to
any person that with a view to preventing him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to (1) the defence of
India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the
security of India, or (2) the security of the State or the
maintenance of public order, or (3) the maintenance of
supplies and services essential to the community ………
it is necessary So to do, make an order directing that
such person be detained. According to the wording of
section 3, therefore, before the Government can pass an
order of preventive detention it must be satisfied with
respect to the individual person that his activities are
directed against one or other of the three objects
mentioned in the section, and that the detaining
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014authority was satisfied that it was necessary to prevent
him from acting in such a manner. The wording of the
section thus clearly shows that it is the satisfaction of
the Central Government or the State Government on
the point which alone is necessary to be established. It
is significant that while the objects intended to be
defeated are mentioned, the different methods, acts or
omissions by which that can be done are not mentioned,
as it is not humanly possible to give such an exhaustive
list. The satisfaction of the Government however must
be based on some grounds. There can be no satisfaction
if there are no grounds for the same. There may be a
divergence of opinion as to whether certain grounds are
sufficient to bring about the satisfaction required by the
section. One person may think one way, another the
other way. If, therefore, the grounds on which it is
stated that the Central Government or the State
Government was satisfied are such as a rational human
being can consider connected in some manner with the
objects which were to be prevented from being attained,
the question of satisfaction except on the ground of
mala fides cannot be challenged in a court. Whether in
a particular case the grounds are sufficient or not,
according to the opinion of any person or body other
than the Central Government or the State Government,
is ruled out by the wording of the section. It is not for
the court to sit in the place of the Central Government
or the State Government and try to deter- mine if it
would have come to the same conclusion as the Central
or the State Government. As has been generally
observed, this is a matter for the subjective decision of
the Government and that cannot be substituted by an
objective test in a court of law. Such detention orders
are passed on information and materials which may not
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014be strictly admissible as evidence under the Evidence
Act in a court, but which the law, taking into
consideration the needs and exigencies of
administration, has allowed to be considered sufficient
for the subjective decision of the Government.”
19. In accordance with the legal position, afore-stated, settled by the Six-
Judge Constitution Bench way back in the year 1951, the scope of looking into
the manner in which the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the detaining
authority, is limited. This Court, while examining the material, which is made
basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, would not act as a
court of appeal and find fault with the satisfaction on the ground that on the
basis of the material before detaining authority another view was possible.
20. The courts do not even go into the questions as to whether the facts
mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false. The reason for the
rule is that to decide this, evidence may have to be taken by the courts and that it
is not the policy of the law of preventive detention. This matter lies within the
competence of the advisory board.
21. Those who are responsible for national security or for maintenance of
public order must be the sole judges of what the national security, public order
or security of the State requires. 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.
Justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not
criminal conviction, which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Thus, any
preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon
individuals, as held by the Supreme Court in the case ‘Ashok Kumar v. Delhi
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2014
Administration & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1143′, do not contribute in any way of
the nature of punishment.
22. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man
for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so,
the Supreme Court held in the case “Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India
& Ors., 2005 (8) SCC 276″, and reiterated in the judgment in a case titled
“Union of India & Anr. v. Dimple Happy Dhakad (AIR 2019 SC 3428)” that
an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive, but a
preventive action, acknowledged object of which being to prevent anti-social
and subversive elements from endangering the welfare of the country or security
of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in anti-
national activities or smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised
to afford protection to society. Rulings 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.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position,
impugned detention order is upheld and the petition is found devoid of any merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed along-with pending application(s).
24. The record of detention be returned to the respondents through their
counsel.
(M.A.Chowdhary)
Judge
JAMMU
09.07.2026.
Raj Kumar Whether the order is speaking: Yes.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes.
