Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 03.07.2025 vs The Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 9 July, 2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1639
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No.65/2025
Reserved on: 03.07.2025.
Pronounced on: 09.07.2025
Bhupinder Singh @ Pinku, Age 54 years ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
S/O Harnam Singh, R/O Ward No.8, Kathua,
Tehsil and District Kathua
Through :- Mr. M K Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gagan Kohli, Advocate.
V/S
1. The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir ....Respondent(s)
Through Commissioner/Secretary to
Government, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu
2. The District Magistrate, Kathua
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Kathua.
4. Superintendent, District Jail, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner namely Bhupinder Singh @ Pinku , S/O Harnam Singh, R/O
Ward No.8, Kathua, Tehsil & District Kathua (for short „the detenue‟) has
challenged the detention Order No.PSA/154 dated 23.04.2025 (impugned
order), issued by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Kathua (hereinafter to be
referred as “the detaining authority”), whereby he has been placed under
preventive detention, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of „public order‟.
2. Petitioner has raised many grounds to assail the impugned order. It is his
contention that Detaining Authority though referred earlier cases from the years
2012, 2013, 2014 and 2024, as found in the Grounds of Detention, what was
2 HCP No.65/20252025:JKLHC-JMU:1639
placed before him was only the copies of reports in those matters. Had the
Authorities placed the outcome of such matters vis-à-vis discharge of petitioner
in case FIR No.347/2014 u/s 302 RPC, the cases of the year 2012 and 2013 were
disposed of being compromised by the court of law; and the petitioner got bailed
out in the case FIR of year 2024, there would have been a different conclusion
than the one which is challenged in the present petition. It is also contended that
the allegations attributed to the petitioner in the grounds of detention may be a
„law and order‟ problem but do not qualify within the definition of „Public
Order‟ under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978; that the petitioner
was not supplied sufficient material which includes the copies of FIRs, statement
of witnesses, list of witnesses, statements before Judicial Magistrate and other
relevant materials which is mandatory as per the provisions of Public Safety
Act; that there is total non application of mind by the detaining authority as the
petitioner stands already discharged and acquitted from the FIRs mentioned in
the grounds of detention; that the petitioner was prevented from making effective
representation to the competent authority as he was not supplied with the entire
material, let alone translated copies of the Urdu documents. Lastly, it is prayed
that the petition be allowed and the impugned detention order be set aside.
3. The respondent No.2, in his counter affidavit, has controverted the
averments made in the petition and submitted that the detenue is a hardcore
criminal, desperate character and has been involved in the commission of
organized crime for the past many years and was still continuing which is
leading to eruption of terror among the general public, therefore, keeping in view
the criminal/anti-social activities of the detenue, detention order was passed by
the respondent no.2 as his remaining at large involves a greater risk to the
3 HCP No.65/20252025:JKLHC-JMU:1639
maintenance of Public Order; that the detention warrant along with grounds of
detention was properly executed through SI Reham Ali of P/S Kathua under
proper acknowledgement of the detenue and he was fully made to understand in
the language he understands; that the detenue was also informed that he can
make representation to the Govt. as well as detaining authority against the
detention order, if he so desires; lastly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed
and the impugned detention order be upheld as the same has strictly been passed
as per the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. The respondents have produced
the detention records in order to support the contentions raised in the counter
affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the
impugned order, reiterated various grounds but his main thrust during the course
of arguments was on the following grounds:
(I) That the outcome of FIRs of the year 2012, 2013, 2014 and of the
year 2024 was not brought to the notice of the competent authority who
passed the order of detention while making the aforesaid FIRs as the
foundation for passing the impugned detention order;
(II) That sufficient material was not supplied to the petitioner including
translated copies of the Urdu documents which prevented the petitioner
from making effective representation to the competent authority against
the detention order; and
(III) That the allegations attributed to him in the grounds of detention
may be a law and order problem but do not qualify within the definition
of „Public Order‟ in terms of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act,
4 HCP No.65/20252025:JKLHC-JMU:16391978 and the grounds of detention have been formulated without
application of mind.
5. Learned State Counsel, ex adverso, making reference to the grounds of
detention, argued that the activities of the detenue were not only criminal but
also in the direction of causing disturbance to the public order; that detention
ordered vide impugned order was in the public interest; that whole of the
material relied upon had been supplied to the detenue by the executing officer at
the time of execution of the detention warrant and contents thereof were
explained to the detenue in the language understandable to him; that all the
constitutional or statutory safeguards were observed in letter and spirit and the
petitioner had also been informed of his right to move representation against his
detention, in terms of impugned order. It was urged, finally, that the same be
upheld and petition be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the detention
record and considered.
7. Para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of District Magistrate,
Kathua-respondent No.2 has detailed the following FIRs registered against the
petitioner:
i. FIR No.160/2012 u/s 323/504/506/147 RPC dated 02.08.2012;
ii. FIR No. 285/2013 u/s 323/147/148 RPC dated 02.08.2013;
iii. FIR No. 327/2014 u/s 302/307/326/336/120-B/147/148/149 RPC
& 30 Arms Act dated 16.09.2014; and
iv. FIR No. 373/2024 u/s 304/115(2)/352/351(2)/191(2) BNS dated
20.11.2024.
5 HCP No.65/20252025:JKLHC-JMU:1639
Involvement of the detenue in the aforementioned cases appears to have been
heavily weighed with the detaining authority, while passing the detention order.
8. Petitioner has placed on record copies of the order dated 30.01.2015
Annexure III passed by the court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Kathua accepting
the compromise agreement between the parties and closed the case involving
FIR No.160/2012 under Sections 141/323/504/506 RPC as decided. Order dated
08.06.2016 (Annexure-IV) passed by the court of Special Mobile Magistrate,
Kathua discharging the petitioner of the charges in case/FIR No.285/2013 u/s
323/147/148 RPC as mutual compromise was reached between the parties and
closed the case as decided. The Judgment dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-V)
passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua, whereby the
detenue was acquitted in case /FIR No.327/2014 of Police Station Kathua under
Sections 302/307/326/336/120-B/147/148/149 RPC & 30 Arms Act. Further
perusal of the grounds of detention vis-à-vis FIR No.373/2024 would show that
the allegations leveled against the petitioner and other persons are vague and
general in nature and nothing specific is alleged against the petitioner.
9. The whole edifice for passing the detention order impugned crumbles
when faced with the outcome of the aforesaid FIRs which were made the basis of
passing of the detention order. Had the outcome of the aforesaid FIRs brought to
the notice of the detaining authority, the detention order could not have been
passed. On this count alone, the detention order having been passed without
application of mind by the detaining authority is not sustainable and liable to be
quashed.
10. So far as the contention of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner
in view of non supply of sufficient material including translated version of the
6 HCP No.65/20252025:JKLHC-JMU:1639
Urdu documents, the petitioner was prevented in making a meaningful and
effective representation is concerned, this court finds force in the aforesaid
contention. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the allegations
contained in the grounds of detention against the detenue, would not constitute
an act amounting to disturbance of public order. It is settled law that if ordinary
law of the land is competent to deal with criminal activities of a criminal,
recourse to the provisions of preventive detention laws is illegal. (See: Criminal
Appeal No.2897 of 2025 in case titled Dhanya M v. State of Kerala & Ors.
reported as 2025 INSC 809).
11. Having regard to what has been observed and discussed above, the
present petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention No. PSA/154
dated 23.04.2025 issued by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Kathua is
hereby quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from the preventive
custody forthwith, if not involved in any other case.
12. The record of detention be returned to the learned counsel for the
respondents.
13. Disposed of.
(MA CHOWDHARY)
Jammu: JUDGE
09.07.2025
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether the order is reportable? Yes
[ad_1]
Source link