[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Riaz Malik vs Ut Of J&K Th. Commissioner/Secretary on 5 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:166-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court LPA No. 228/2025 in
HCP No. 55/2025
Reserved on: 28.01.2026
Pronounced on: 05.02.2026
Uploaded on:. 05.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced: Full judgment.
1. Mohd. Riaz Malik
Aged 42 years, S/O Fiaz Akbar R/O
Village Azamabad, Tehsil Mandi District
Poonch
Presently detained in Central Jail Kot
Bhalwal, Jammu.
Th. his brother namely Manzoor Ahmed
Aged 61 years S/O Faiz Akbar R/O
Village Azamabad, Tehsil Mandi District
Poonch PIN 185102 .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S. H. Rather, Advocate.
Vs
1. UT of J&K Th. Commissioner/Secretary
to Govt. Home Dept. Civil Secretariat,
Jammu
2. District Magistrate, Poonch.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Poonch. ..... Respondent(s)
4. Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot
Bhalwal, Jammu
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
2026:JKLHC-JMU:166-DB
( Oswal-J)
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.2025
passed by the learned Writ Court in HCP No. 55/2025 titled "Mohd. Riaz
Malik vs. UT of J&K and others" by virtue of which the Habeas Corpus
petition filed by the appellant against the order of detention bearing No.
DMP/PSA/02 of 2025 dated 04.04.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2, has
been dismissed.
2. It is contended by the appellant that the grounds of detention are the
verbatim reproduction of the police dossier submitted by the respondent
No. 3, which clearly demonstrates non-application of mind by the
Detaining Authority i.e. respondent No. 2. It is also urged that even if the
allegations in the grounds of detention are accepted, they relate to „law and
order‟ and not to „public order‟ and further that the appellant was not
provided with all the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority.
The appellant has further contended that FIR No. 0004/2025 registered
under Sections 324(4), 3(5) of BNSS and Section 3 of the Public Property
(Prevention of Damages) Act, has wrongly been relied upon to justify the
detention of the appellant, as the appellant was not named as accused in the
said the FIR.
3. Mr. S. H. Rather, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued
that the grounds of detention are the verbatim reproduction of the dossier
submitted by the respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 for detaining the
appellant under the Act and, as such, the order of detention is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. He has further argued that the appellant has
2026:JKLHC-JMU:166-DB
been slapped with the detention order only because he had filed the writ
petition bearing WP(C) No. 1455/2022 and LPA No. 86/2022 against
influential persons for encroaching upon the State Land. He has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled as "Jai Singh v.
State of J&K" reported in (1985) 1 SCC 561 and "Rajesh Vashdev
Adnani v. State of Maharashtra" reported in (2005) 8 SCC 390.
4. Per contra, Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG appearing for the
respondents has submitted that all the procedural requirements as envisaged
in the J&K Public Safety Act and the Constitution of India have been
meticulously followed by the respondents not only at the time of issuance
of the detention order but also at the time of execution of the same.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. The record shows that the grounds of detention issued by Respondent No. 2
are a verbatim copy of the dossier submitted by Respondent No. 3 on
29.03.2025. This total overlap demonstrates a lack of independent
evaluation. Since the Detaining Authority is legally required to derive its
own 'subjective satisfaction' rather than simply adopting the Sponsoring
Agency's report, the detention order is legally untenable and is liable to be
set aside.
7. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Apex Court in case titled "Jai
Singh v. State of J&K" reported in (1985) 1 SCC 561 and the relevant
portion is reproduced as under:
"-------First taking up the case of Jai Singh, the first of the
petitioners before us, a perusal of the grounds of detention
shows that it is a verbatim reproduction of the dossier submitted
by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur to the
2026:JKLHC-JMU:166-DB
District Magistrate requesting that a detention order may kindly
be issued. At the top of the dossier, the name is mentioned as
Sardar Jai Singh, father's name is mentioned as Sardar Ram
Singh and the address is given as Village Bharakh, Tehsil Reasi.
Thereafter it is recited "The subject is an important member
of...." Thereafter follow various allegations against Jai Singh,
paragraph by paragraph. In the grounds of detention, all that the
District Magistrate has done is to change the first three words
"the subject is" into "you Jai Singh, s/o Ram Singh, resident of
Village Bharakh, Tehsil Reasi". Thereafterword for word the
police dossier is repeated and the word "he" wherever it occurs
referring to Jai Singh in the dossier is changed into "you" in the
grounds of detention. We are afraid it is difficult to find greater
proof of non-application of mind. The liberty of a subject is a
serious matter and it is not to be trifled with in this casual,
indifferent and routine manner."
8. Further, in case titled "Rajesh Vashdev Adnani v. State of Maharashtra"
reported in (2005) 8 SCC 390 the Apex Court quashed the order of
detention, as the detention order was the verbatim reproduction of the
proposal of the sponsoring authority.
9. As we have already arrived at the conclusion that the order of detention
cannot be sustained on the abovementioned sole ground, we do not find any
necessity to adjudicate the other grounds raised by the appellant.
10. We have examined the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court, and we
find that the learned Writ Court has not considered the issue at all as
considered by us.
11. In view of the above, the instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated
25.09.2025 passed by the learned Writ Court is set-aside, and the order of
detention bearing No. DMP/PSA/02 of 2025 dated 04.04.2025 issued by the
respondent No. 2 is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released
forthwith from the custody, provided he is not required in any other case.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:166-DB
12. Detention record be returned back to Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Senior
AAG against proper receipt.
13. Disposed of along with the connected application, if any.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
05.02.2026
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
