Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Pronounced On:09.05.2025 vs Union Territory Of J&K And on 9 May, 2025
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1141
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 129/2024
Pronounced on:09.05.2025
Yudhbir Singh .... Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate
V/s
Union Territory of J&K and .....Respondent(s)
others
Through:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. The challenge in this petition pertains to detention order No.
PSA 10 of 2024 dated 14.03.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu
detaining the detenu-Yudhbir Singh alias Bablu, by the Detaining Authority
on the ground that he is a hardened criminal and has constantly been
involved in numerous criminal offences that are of serious and grave nature
and with a view to prevent him from committing any act, the detenu was
detained vide order dated 14.03.2024.
02. The impugned order of detention has been assailed by the detenu
on the grounds that; (i) the order of detention has been passed without any
application of mind on a mere apprehension of threat to the security of the
State; (ii) the Detaining Authority has not arrived at any subjective
satisfaction before passing the order of detention; (iii) the detenu was not
informed about his right to make a representation against the detention order
which is in violation of his right guaranteed under Article 22 of the
Constitution; (iv) the grounds of detention have not been read over and
explained to the detenu in the language he understands; (v) the order of
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1141
detention has been passed without any application of mind on irrelevant and
vague grounds; (vi) all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority
has been provided to the detenu which is blur and illegible; (vii) the
Detaining Authority has only relied upon the police dossier and without
application of mind and without recording his personal satisfaction by
repeating the grounds of detention in the impugned order, has acted
mechanically while passing the order of detention.
03. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and produced
the detention record.
04. Learned AAG submits that the detenu was a hard core criminal
and has been involved in numerous activities of serious and heinous nature
over a period of time and has spread a reign of terror among the peace loving
people of the area and his anti social activities are prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order, as such, he was detained under the preventive
law. It is further submitted that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
Detaining Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review by this Court. All
the procedural safeguards and constitutional guarantees were duly complied
with by the Detaining Authority. The grounds of detention, order of
detention as well as entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority
has been provided to the detenu and he was also informed of his right to
make a representation against the order of detention.
05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also.
06. The Senior Superintendent of Police vide dossier dated 06.02.2024
has supported that the detenu is habitual offender and is involved in
numerous criminal offences of serious nature. There are as many as 23 FIRs
registered against him in different Police Stations. The detenu‟s activities are
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1141
highly prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate,
Jammu after considering all the material on record arrived at subjective
satisfaction and detained the detenu.
07. The Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention, has stated
that the detenu is a hard-core criminal and has been involved in numerous
activities of serious and heinous nature over a period of time and has spread
a reign of terror among the peace loving people of the area and anti-social
activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which poses a
serious threat to the peace of society.
08. The contention of the detenu „that there is no application of mind
by the Detaining Authority‟ is without any merit as the Detaining Authority
arrived at the subjective satisfaction after considering all the material on
record that the criminal activities of the detenu were likely to disturb even
temp of life.
09. The contention of the detenu „that all the material relied upon by
the Detaining Authority has not been provided to the detenu‟ is without any
merit. Perusal of the detention record reveals that the execution report,
which is placed on record, the Executing Officer-Nazarat Hussain, SI had
executed the warrant, the detenu was provided the detention order (1 leaf),
Notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (10 leaves), dossier of
detention (12 leaves) and other related relevant documents (352 leaves). The
contents whereof were read over and explained to the detenu in Hindi/Dogri
language which he fully understood. This apart, he was also informed of his
right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority or to the
Government against the order of detention.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1141
10. It is well settled that, in case, the detenu has been detained under
the preventive detention and the allegation as well as the material against the
detenu relied upon by the Detaining Authority was sufficient to derive its
subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu was imperative to
prevent him from acting in any manner which would cause threat to the
maintenance of public order. The receipt which is placed on record reveals
that the detenu has been provided the grounds of detention, contents of the
detention, dossier, copy of FIR and other material, the same has been
acknowledged by the detenu.
11. Preventive detention has been held to be permissible under the
Constitution for detaining a person in accordance with the law made on the
subject. Preventive detention is made with the aim and object to keep the
society from activities of a person which are likely to deprive the large
number of people from their personal liberty. The object is to curtail and
prevent the liberty of an individual who involves in such activities is in the
larger public interest.
12. Personal liberty is one of the most precious rights guaranteed
under the Constitution and no one can be deprived of his right to life and
personal liberty except by procedure established by law. Article 22(5),
however, provides detention of person without formal charge, trial and
without person being held guilty of an offence. The only objective is to
prevent a person from creating mischief and to protect the society.
13. In Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order) and
another vs. Nabila and another, reported as (2015) 12 SCC 127, it has
been held that one act may not be sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction
for detaining him. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1141
"Indisputably, the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive,
but only preventive. In case of preventive detention no offence is to be
proved nor is any charge formulated. The justification of such detention
is suspicion and reasonability and there is no criminal conviction which
can only be warranted by legal evidence..."
14. Similarly, in "Haradhan Saha V. State of West Bengal",
reported as (1975) 3 SCC 198, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court has held that
there is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention
order under the Public Safety Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a
preventive act. In one, case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the
standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a
man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons
mentioned in the Act. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as
under:-
"The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a
person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him
from doing it. The, basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of
a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner
similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the
same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done
which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no
parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under
the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one,
case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof
beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is
prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons
mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent." 11. Similarly, in "Secretary
to Government, Public (Law and order) and another vs. Nabila and
another", (2015) 12 SCC 127, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"Indisputably, the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive, but
only preventive. In case of preventive detention no offence is to be proved
nor is any charge formulated. The justification of such detention is
suspicion and reasonability and there is no criminal conviction which can
only be warranted by legal evidence. However, the detaining authority
must keep in mind while passing the order of detention, the civil and
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1141
constitutional right granted to every citizen by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, inasmuch as no person shall be deprived of life and
liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The
laws of Preventive Detention are to be strictly construed and the procedure
provided must be meticulously followed".
15. In "Union of India and another vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad
reported as AIR 2019 SC 3428", it has been held by Hon‟ble Apex Court
that the Court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority is „subjective‟ in nature and the Court cannot substitute its opinion
for the subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority and interfere with the
order of detention, though the same is subject to review on the procedural
safeguards.
16. It was submitted that the detenu was detained on the basis of State
incident which has no live and proximate link with the imperative detention.
The grounds of the detention reveal that the detenu is involved in as many as
23 FIRs and the past conduct of the detenu is a threat to the public and he is
repeatedly indulging in criminal and social activities which are disturbing
the peace and tranquility of society.
17. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any
ambiguity and the detenu was informed with sufficient clarity what weighed
with the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. The
procedural safeguards are complied with. The Detaining Authority arrived at
the satisfaction after considering all the material placed before it and none of
the constitutional and statutory rights of the detenu have been violated. The
act of detaining is related to activities which have been projecting a serious
threat to the maintenance of public order.
18. The contention of the detenu regarding grounds of detention being
replica or dossier is also without any merit. The Detaining Authority after
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1141
application of mind has arrived at the subjective satisfaction to detain the
detenu.
19. For the foregoing reasons, there is no ground to interfere in the
impugned order of detention. This petition lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
20. The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the
respondents by the Registry forthwith.
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
Jammu :
09.05.2025
Ram Murti
Whether approved for speaking : Yes/No
Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No
