HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

HCP No. 18/2025

Pronounced on: 07.05.2025

Farman Ali …. Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through:- Mr. A.P Singh, Advocate

Mr. Nikhil Verma, Advocate

V/s

UT of J&K and others …..Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

01. The petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of

impugned detention order No. PSA/124 dated 23.02.2024, passed by

the District Magistrate, Kathua, under Section 8 of the Jammu and

Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

02. The District Magistrate, Kathua, has detained Farman Ali, S/o Rashid,

R/o Village Gota Roua, Tehsil Marheen, District Kathua, under Section

8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, to prevent him from acting in

any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order on the basis

of dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua.

03. As per the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Kathua, the petitioner was involved in as many as five FIRs, i.e., FIR

No. 209/2019, under Sections 341/323/147/436 IPC, FIR No.

268/2021, under Sections 341/323/382/147 IPC, FIR No. 100/2022,

under Sections 341/323/504/506 IPC, FIR No. 233/2022, under

Sections 341/323/336/504/506/147 IPC, FIR No. 104/2023, under 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1127

HCP No. 18/2025________ Page 2 of 7

Sections 341/323/382/147 IPC, all registered at Police Station Rajbagh.

The detaining authority has arrived at its subjective satisfaction that the

petitioner is continuously indulging in illegal and criminal activities and

his activities are threat to the life and liberty of the people and is also

acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of safety and

security of public in the area. Therefore, in order to maintain public

order, the detaining authority has arrived at a conclusion to detain the

petitioner for maintenance of public order.

04. The impugned detention order has been assailed by the petitioner on

the following grounds: -

i. That the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of dossier,

therefore, there is no application of mind.

ii. That the petitioner has neither been furnished all the

relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority

while passing the order of detention nor was informed of

his statutory right to make an effective representation to

the detaining authority against his detention, as such, the

same has resulted in infraction of the valuable rights as

guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 22(5) of the

Constitution of India, thus, the detention is bad and is

required to be set aside.

iii. That there is a delay of ten months in execution of the

detention order dated 23.02.2024, thus, the detention is

vitiated.

iv. That the detention order is vague and irrelevant to its

purpose, as none of the five FIRs/Challans cited by the 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1127

HCP No. 18/2025________ Page 3 of 7

detaining authority mention any offence related to

communal harmony or religious feelings, as such, the

detaining authority has failed to apply its mind while

issuing the order of detention.

v. That there is no live link between the last alleged activity

against the petitioner, and the order of detention has been

passed nearly after ten months, i.e., 23.02.2024;

vi. That the petitioner was acquitted in FIR No. 100/2022, but

the detaining authority has failed to notice this fact and

erroneously relied upon the said FIR while passing the order

of detention.

05. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and produced the

detention record.

06. It is submitted that as per the communication dated 13.02.2024,

received from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, and

keeping in view the continuous and repeated involvement of the

petitioner in illegal and criminal activities, he was detained under the

J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, for maintenance of public order.

Further, the detention warrant along with grounds of detention was

properly executed under proper acknowledgement of the petitioner.

The same were read over to the petitioner and explained to him in the

language he understands. The petitioner has also been informed that

he can make a representation to the Government against his

detention.

07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1127

HCP No. 18/2025________ Page 4 of 7

08. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has been detained for his

activities which were found to be prejudicial to the public peace and

order. In the grounds of detention, it has been stated that the petitioner

is a habitual criminal involved in organized crime for many years, and

continues to engage in such activities, leading to a sense of terror

among the general public. The actions of the petitioner are prejudicial

to the maintenance of public order and tranquility. The repeated illegal

and criminal activities of the petitioner have instilled insecurity, fear,

and terror in the area, disturbing both public order and communal

harmony, therefore, in order to prevent him from further actions

detrimental to the maintenance of public order and communal harmony,

it has become necessary to detain the petitioner.

09. Perusal of the record further reveals that the petitioner has been

detained for his activities which were found to be prejudicial to the

public peace and order. The Detaining Authority has relied on the fact

that the petitioner was involved in as many as five FIRs, i.e., i.e. FIR

No. 209/2019, FIR No. 268/2021, FIR No. 100/2022, FIR No.

233/2022 and FIR No. 104/2023. However, there is a clear non-

application of mind, as the Detaining Authority has failed to consider

the fact that no FIR other than the FIRs mentioned above has been

registered against the petitioner after the year 2023, during which the

petitioner was on bail.

10. Another important aspect of the matter is that no FIR has been

registered against the petitioner after April 2023, while the petitioner

was on bail. However, the detention order was issued on 23.02.2024,

nearly ten months after his last alleged involvement in criminal activity. 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1127

HCP No. 18/2025________ Page 5 of 7

11. In the present case, there is no cogent explanation coming forth from

perusal of the grounds of detention with reference to the live-link

between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of the detention and

resultantly the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.

12. The detention order was passed on 23.02.2024, but the same was

executed on 06.01.2025 i.e. after a delay of nearly ten months. There is

no explanation put forth for the delay in execution of detention warrant.

The petitioner has stated that he was available and this fact has not been

rebutted.

13. In “A. Mohammed Farook vs. Jt. Secy. To G.O.I. and ors”,

(2000) 2 SCC 360, the Hon‟ble Apex court has held that:

“The only contention before the Court was that of delay in

executing the order of detention. In that case, the detention

order was passed on 25.02.1999 but the authorities have chosen

to execute the detention order only on 06.04.1999 after an

inordinate and unreasonable delay of nearly 40 days. In the

absence of proper and acceptable reasons for the delay of 40

days in executing the detention order, this Court concluded that

the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in issuing

the detention order dated 25.02.1999 gets vitiated and on this

ground quashed the same.”

14. Similar view has been expressed in “K.P. M. Basheer V. State of

Karnataka and another”, AIR 1992 SC 1353, the Hon‟ble Apex

court has held that:

“…Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the

order of detention cannot be sustained since the „live and

proximate link‟ between the grounds of detention and the

purpose of detention is snapped on account of the undue

and unreasonable delay in security the appellant/detenue

and detaining him…”

15. It is next submitted that the petitioner has not been provided all the

requisite material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1127

HCP No. 18/2025________ Page 6 of 7

the order of detention. Perusal of the receipt of grounds of detention

reveals that the petitioner has been provided detention order (02 leaves),

notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (08 leaves), dossier of

detention (40 leaves) and other document (Nil). It is thus clear that

petitioner has not been provided all the relevant material relied upon by

the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. This has

resulted in infraction of his statutory rights available to him under law.

16. Reliance is placed on “Thahira Haris etc. etc. Vs. Government of

Karnataka and others”, reported as AIR 2009 Supreme Court

2184, has held as under:

“27. There were several grounds on which the detention of the

detenu was challenged in these appeals but it is not necessary

to refer to all the grounds since on the ground of not supplying

the relied upon document, continued detention of the detenu

becomes illegal and detention order has to be quashed on that

ground alone.

28. Our Constitution provides adequate safeguards under

clauses (5) and (6) of Article 22 to the detenu who has been

detained in pursuance of the order made under any law

providing for preventive detention. He has right to be supplied

copies of all documents, statements and other materials relied

upon in the grounds of detention without any delay. The

predominant object of communicating the grounds of

detention is to enable the detenu at the earliest opportunity

to make effective and meaningful representation against his

detention.”

17. Similar view has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sophia

Ghulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra and others”, AIR

1999 SC 3051, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under:

“... The right to be communicated the grounds of detention

flows from Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the

material on which the grounds are based flows from the right

given to the detenu to make a representation against the order

of detention. Are presentation can be made and the order of

detention can be assailed only when all the grounds on which

the order is based are communicated the detenu and the

material on which those grounds are based are also disclosed

and copies thereof are supplied to the person detained, in his

own language....” 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1127

HCP No. 18/2025________ Page 7 of 7

18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is no need to advert to other

grounds raised in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and

the Detention Order No. No. PSA/124 dated 23.02.2024, passed by the

District Magistrate, Kathua, under which the petitioner-Farman Ali, S/o

Rashid, R/o Village Gota Roua, Tehsil Marheen, District Kathua, is

under detention, is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the

petitioner from the custody forthwith, provided he is not required in any

other case.

19. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the

respondents by the Registry forthwith.

(SINDHU SHARMA)

JUDGE

Jammu:

07.05.2025

Vishal Khajuria

Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1127