Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Anwar Mohd vs Union Territory Of J&K Through … on 21 July, 2025
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on : 03.06.2025.
Pronounced on : 21.07.2025.
HCP No. 54/2025
Anwar Mohd, aged 25 years,
S/o Mohd. Sharief,
R/o Damni, Jhajjar Kotli, Tehsil Dansal,
District Jammu.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manpreet Singh Saini, Advocate
Vs
1. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary,
Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. District Magistrate, Jammu.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu.
4. Incharge Superintendent, District Jail Rajouri.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
for the respondents. Perused the writ pleadings and the
documents therewith.
2 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
02. The petitioner has come forward with the present
writ petition filed on 19.04.2025, thereby calling in question
his preventive detention effected by an order of the
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu effected
under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 in
connection with which the petitioner is under the preventive
detention custody with effect from 01.01.2025 and which is
meant to last for a period of one year subject to outcome of
this writ petition.
03. The respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police
(SSP), Jammu came to submit a communication No. CRB/
Dossier/2024/68/DPOJ dated 28.12.2024 to the respondent
No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu accompanied with 107
pages compilation in the form of a dossier with respect to the
petitioner on the basis whereof the preventive detention of
the petitioner was solicited on account of his purported
activities read and reckoned by the District Police, Jammu to
be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.
04. In said dossier, the petitioner came to be referred as
a notorious and hardcore bovine smuggler indulging in
repeat of activities of bovine transportation in illegal manner
thereby posing a threat to the maintenance of Public Order.
3 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
The petitioner is referred to be a desperate character and
habitual of indulging in acts of bovine smuggling and even
spreading a reign of communal terror.
05. The involvement of the petitioner in the below cited
FIRs and Daily Reports came to be highlighted to carry the
plea for preventive detention of the petitioner under the
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978:-
a) FIR No. 20/2022 dated 07.03.2022 registered
by the Police Station Majalta Udhampur for
alleged commission of offences under section
188-IPC read with section 11 of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, Svt., 1990 (1934
A.D.) involving illegal transportation of 16
bovine animals without District Magistrate’s
permission in a vehicle No. JK03D-7019.
b) FIR No. 81/2022 dated 19.04.2022 registered
by the Police Station Raj Bagh Kathua for
alleged commission of offences under section
188-IPC read with section 11 of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, Svt., 1990 (1934
A.D.) for illegally transporting 16 bovine
animals in truck No.JK02AT-4957 without
requisite permission.
c) FIR No.02/2023 dated 01.01.2023 registered by
the Police Station Nagrota Jammu for alleged
commission of offences under section 188-IPC,
4 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, Svt., 1990 (1934 A.D.) read with
Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 involving
illegal transportation of 10 bovine animals in a
vehicle No.JK0BT-6357.
d) FIR No. 162/2023 dated 27.11.2023 registered
by the Police Station Batote Ramban for alleged
commission of offences under section 188-IPC,
section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, Svt., 1990 (1934 A.D.) read with
Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 involving
illegal transportation of 17 bovine animals in
truck No. JK02AP-8887.
e) FIR No. 291/2023 dated 26.12.2023 registered
by the Police Station Jhajjar Kotli Jammu for
alleged commission of offences under section
188-IPC read with section 11 of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, Svt., 1990 (1934
A.D.) for illegal transportation of 22 bovine
animals without requisite Magisterial
permission in truck No. JK01AP-1871.
f) FIR No.26/2024 dated 09.02.2024 registered by
the Police Station Jhajjar Kotli Jammu for
alleged commission of offences under section
188-IPC, read with section 11 of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, Svt., 1990 (1934
A.D.) involving illegal transportation of 9 bovine
5 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864animals in truck No. JK14G-6357 without any
Magisterial permission.
g) DDR No. 23 dated 12.11.2024 of Police Station
Jhajjar Kotli.
h) DDR No. 16 dated 26.12.2024 of Police Post
Manwal.
i) DDR No. 17 dated 27.12.2024 of Police Post
Sidhra.
j) DDR No. 18 dated 28.12.2024 of Police Station
Jhajjar Kotli.
06. With the aforesaid criminal antecedents of the
petitioner, his preventive detention was solicited so as to
prevent any prejudice to the maintenance of Public Order
taking place on account of illegal activities of the petitioner.
07. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu
in exercise of power under section 8(2)(ii) of the J&K Public
Safety Act, 1978 came to formulate the grounds of detention
therefrom drawing subjective satisfaction that the case
presented before him relatable to the petitioner by the
respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Jammu warrants preventive detention of the petitioner under
section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act,
1978 and, accordingly, passed Order No. PSA 33 of 2024
6 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
dated 30.12.2024 ordering the preventive detention of the
petitioner so as to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and ordered
his detention and confinement in the Central Jail Kot
Bhalwal, Jammu.
08. Pursuant to the detention order so passed by the
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu, the detention
of the petitioner came to take place when PSI Ahsan Khan,
PID No. EXJ-196263 came to detain the petitioner on
01.01.2025 and handed over to him the detention order and
the grounds of detention (14 leaves), comprising of one leaf of
detention order, three leaves of notice of detention and ten
leaves of grounds of detention against receipt taken from the
petitioner.
09. The petitioner has challenged his preventive
detention on the grounds as set out in the writ petition
stating therein that without copies of FIRs, challans,
statements of witnesses in relation to the FIRs mentioned in
the dossier as well as in the grounds of detention, the
petitioner was served only with the detention order which
seriously prejudiced the right of the petitioner to make an
effective representation against his preventive detention
7 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
without being possessed of the essential documents on the
basis of which he is meaning to be pleaded that not only he
was on bail in each and every FIR referred to him.
10. In addition, the petitioner also pleaded that even if
the criminal cases relatable to FIRs as mentioned in the
dossier as well as in the grounds of detention were obtaining
against the petitioner still the petitioner was facing ordinary
criminal law and by that reference was not to be subjected to
punitive punishment under the Public Safety Act, 1978 and
that is where the petitioner is pleading that the indulgence of
a person in commission of offences under section 188-IPC
read with section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, Svt., 1990 (1934 A.D.) do not fall within the scope and
mischief of section 8(1)(a) of the Public Safety Act, 1978.
11. In response to the averments made in the writ
petition, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu
came forward with a counter affidavit asserting that all the
procedural parameters and safeguards were complied with in
carrying out and subjecting the petitioner to preventive
detention custody and that the petitioner’s activities are of
the nature which rendered him to be booked under the
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
8 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
12. It has been asserted in the counter affidavit from
the end of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu
that the latest booking of the petitioner in an alleged
commission of offences under section 188-IPC read with
section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Svt.,
1990 (1934 A.D.) was on 09.02.2024 whereafter the
petitioner was repeatedly tagged with four DDRs by the
respective Police Stations and that provided a live basis for
the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Jammu and also for the respondent No. 2 – District
Magistrate, Jammu to reckon the petitioner to be indulging in
activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
13. In support of his contention that the petitioner was
not to be booked under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety
Act, 1978 for his alleged involvement in commission of
offences under section 188-IPC read with section 11 of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Svt., 1990 (1934 A.D.),
the petitioner has referred to a distinction between
maintenance of Public Order and the Law and Order problem
being well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the matter of imposing preventive detention upon a detenue
by reference to maintenance of Public Order.
9 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
14. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the cases of “Arun Ghosh Vs State of West
Bengal,” (1970)1 SCC 1998 & “Sama Aruna Vs State of
Telangana and another,” (2018)12 SCC 150.
15. When this Court examines the present case, there
is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner seems to be a
repeat offender in exploit of his occupation as being a driver
and that is the reason that in all the FIRs the petitioner is
being referred to be driving different vehicles at different
points of time alleging carrying the bovine animals without
magisterial permission but to whom said vehicles belonged in
terms of its ownership has not been spelled out in the dossier
submitted by the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of
Police (SSP), Jammu and so is same missing in the grounds
of detention of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Jammu.
16. Be that as it may, the fact which needs to be
examined is whether the respondent No. 3 – Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu had supported and
supplemented his dossier with the accompanying documents
relatable to the criminal cases mentioned in the dossier. The
10 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
observation which comes rushing to this Court is that while
SDPO Nagrota had provided to the respondent No. 3 – Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu with 89 leaves of
dossier with respect to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 –
Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu from his end
while submitting his dossier to the respondent No. 2 –
District Magistrate, Jammu seems to have withheld the
placement of said 89 leaves of dossier information so served
by the SDPO Nagrota.
17. This Court, when coming with the observation on
the fact that if the dossier submitted by the respondent No. 3
– Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu to the
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu would have
been accompanied with 89 leaves of dossier information so
served by the SDPO Nagrota, then at the time of execution of
detention warrant against the petitioner by PSI Ahsan Khan,
the petitioner would not have been delivered/handed over
with 14 leaves compilation related to his detention
comprising of 01 leaf of detention warrant, 03 leaves of notice
of detention and 10 leaves of grounds of detention.
18. This is where the petitioner has come up with the
plea of being subjected to prejudice that the deficient dossier
11 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
and deficient grounds of detention were supplied to him
seriously prejudicing the right of making an effective
representation on the basis of which he could have been
afforded to plead to the Govt. or the respondent No. 2 –
District Magistrate, Jammu that no case was made out for
effecting the preventive detention.
19. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu
and the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police
(SSP), Jammu cannot escape from the burden of being
derelict on this aspect of the case and the reasons are best
known to them as to why they acted in a haste without
exercising due diligence and indulgence that in case if the
petitioner was being contemplated to be subjected to
preventive detention then whatsoever material was being
pressed into consideration for soliciting and ordering the
preventive detention then the same should have been
supplied to him so as to confront him point-blank that on the
basis of the material so served to him his preventive
detention custody has come visiting him. At the best, this
court can only read a sense of casualness and mechanical
mindset approach at the end of the respondent No. 3 – Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu and the respondent
No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jammu that even in a case which
12 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
essentially is of a good nature in booking a person for
preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public
Safety Act, 1978, crucial procedural lapses invite the failing
of decision/order of subjecting a detenue to preventive
detention.
20. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed and for that the order of detention No.
PSA 33 of 2024 dated 30.12.2024 read with consequent
approval/order passed by the Govt. of UT of Jammu &
Kashmir through its Home Department are hereby quashed.
21. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his
personal liberty by his release from the concerned Jail
detaining him and to that effect the concerned Jail
Superintendent is directed to release the petitioner subject to
the condition that the petitioner would furnish personal as
well as surety bond of Rs. 5 lacs each to the effect that the
petitioner shall not be indulging in repeat of offences for
which he has been booked in the FIRs as mentioned in the
dossier as well as in the grounds of detention for a period of
next three years.
22. Surety bond to be furnished to the District
Magistrate, Jammu, whereas the personal bond to be
13 HCP No. 54/2025
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1864
furnished to Superintendent of the concerned Jail who shall
thereupon forward the personal bond to the District
Magistrate, Jammu for the purpose of reference relatable to
the petitioner. In the event of breach of personal bond
furnished by the petitioner as directed, proceedings for
forfeiture of bond, personal as well as surety, to be initiated
by the District Magistrate, Jammu.
23. Disposed of.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
21.07.2025
Muneesh
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes