[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Reserved On: 29.01.2026 vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 6 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                     2026:JKLHC-JMU:189




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                           HCP No. 114/2025



                                        Reserved on: 29.01.2026
                                     Pronounced on : 06.02.2026
                                       Uploaded on : 06.02.2026
                                 Whether the operative part or full
                                   judgment is pronounced: Full

Mohd. Tahir Pall
                                                         ....Petitioners

               Through:-     Mr. Satinder Gupta, Advocate and
                             Mr. Mohd. Hafiz Nazki, Advocate.

                           V/s

UT of J&K & Ors
                                                       .....Respondents

               Through:-     Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy. AG.
\

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

(JUDGMENT)

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present

petition, has challenged Order No. PSA No. 11 of 2025 dated

19.07.2025 issued by District Magistrate, Jammu-respondent

No. 2 herein whereby petitioner-Mohd. Tahir Pall has been

placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from

acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public

order.

02. It has been contended by the petitioner that

representation filed by him against the impugned order of

2026:JKLHC-JMU:189

detention has been considered belatedly by the respondents

and while rejecting the same, no reasoned order has been

passed. It has been further contended that the impugned

order of detention has been issued by respondent No. 2 in a

casual and mechanical manner without application of mind

inasmuch as the grounds of detention are verbatim

reproduction of the dossier prepared by SDPO, City East,

Jammu-respondent No. 4 herein who, according to the

petitioner, is holding a grudge against him being closely

related to persons inimical to the petitioner.

03. It has been contended that the impugned order of

detention has been passed by respondent No. 2 with a view to

put the petitioner behind the bars despite having been bailed

out by courts of law in all the FIRs registered against him. It

has also been contended that the petitioner even after being

bailed out in FIR No. 59 of 2025 of Police Station, Bahu Fort,

Jammu was again taken into custody on the basis of suspicion

and was illegally detained by the police till such time the

impugned order of detention came to be issued by respondent

No. 2 which clearly shows that the action of the respondents is

tainted with malafides and the same constitutes colourable

exercise of power on the part of the detaining authority.

04. It has been submitted that petitioner had

approached the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jammu, seeking directions to the police for his production in

the court as he had been illegally detained despite having been

2026:JKLHC-JMU:189

bailed out in criminal case registered against him. In the

report submitted by the police before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jammu, it was submitted by the police that

petitioner had been arrested on the basis of suspicion after his

release on bail, which clearly goes on to show that action of the

respondents in passing the impugned order of detention is

malafide in nature and the same has been issued at the behest

of respondent No. 4.

05. Respondent No. 2 has contested the petition by

filing the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been

submitted that the petitioner is a hardcore and habitual

criminal, who indulges in heinous crimes in Jammu. It has

been submitted that the petitioner is a notorious and hard

core criminal, who does not follow the rule of law and his

activities are detrimental to the maintenance of public order.

According to the respondents, five FIRs have been registered

against the petitioner, details whereof are given in the grounds

of detention and despite being bailed out in all these FIRs, he

has continued his criminal activities, which compelled the

detaining authority to pass the impugned detention order so as

to prevent the petitioner from indulging in activities prejudicial

to the maintenance of public order.

06. It has been submitted that the impugned order has

been passed by the detaining authority after arriving at

satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner is a grave threat to

the society and public order. It has also been submitted that

2026:JKLHC-JMU:189

representation submitted by the petitioner was thoroughly

examined and the same was rejected whereafter the result of

consideration was conveyed to the petitioner through

Superintendent, District Jail, Kathua and Tehsildar, Bahu was

also instructed to inform the sister of the petitioner. It has

been contended that all the statutory and constitutional

imperatives have been followed by the respondents while

executing the impugned order of detention against the

petitioner and he has been furnished all the material on the

basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated. It

has also been contended that contents of detention order and

grounds of detention have been explained to the petitioner in

dogri/hindi languages. In order to lend support to the

contentions projected by the respondents in the counter

affidavit, they have produced the detention record.

07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record of the case.

08. Learned counsel for the petitioner while seeking

quashment of the impugned order has projected various

grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments

was on the ground that representation submitted by the

detenue against his detention has been considered belatedly

by the respondents thereby rendering the order of detention

unsustainable in law.

09. The record produced by the respondents reveals

that two representations have been received by the

2026:JKLHC-JMU:189

respondents on behalf of the petitioner. One representation

has been addressed to District Magistrate, Jammu whereas,

the other representation has been addressed to Home

Department of the Government. It seems that representation

dated 24.07.2025 submitted on behalf of the petitioner to

District Magistrate, Jammu has been rejected by the said

authority on 08.08.2025 and a communication in this regard

has been sent to Smt. Parveena Bano, the sister of petitioner.

The record further shows that Smt. Parveena Bano had

addressed a communication to District Magistrate, Jammu in

which she has stated that she had never filed a representation

on behalf of the petitioner and that the representation in her

name is fictitious.

10. So far as the representation dated 29.07.2025

forwarded by the petitioner to the Home Department is

concerned, a copy of the same is available in the record, which

goes on to show that the said representation has been received

by the Home Department. The detention record tends to show

that the said representation was forwarded by the Home

Department to ADGP, CID, J&K under covering letter dated

04.08.2025 for obtaining the comments. Vide communication

dated 10.09.2025, ADGP CID J&K forwarded his comments to

the Home Department and on 16.09.2025, the Government

rejected the representation of the petitioner and communicated

the same to the petitioner through Superintendent, District

Jail, Kathua.

2026:JKLHC-JMU:189

11. The question that arises for consideration is

whether the delay of more than one and a half month in

considering the representation of the petitioner by the

Government vitiates the impugned order of detention.

12. The aforesaid question has been answering by the

Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District

Magistrate, Jabalpur and others,(2021) 20 SCC 98. It would

be apt to refer to observations made by the Supreme Court in

para 47 of the judgment, which are reproduced as under:-

"47. By delaying its decision on the representation, the State Government deprived the detenu of the valuable right which emanates from the provisions of Section 8(1) of having the representation being considered expeditiously. As we have noted earlier, the communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu "as soon as may be" and the affording to the detenu of the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention to the appropriate government are intended to ensure that the representation of the detenu is considered by the appropriate government with a sense of immediacy. The State Government failed to do so. The making of a reference to the Advisory Board could not have furnished any justification for the State Government not to deal with the representation independently at the earliest. The delay by the State Government in disposing of the representation and by the Central and State Governments in communicating such rejection, strikes at the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to the detenu. It is necessary to understand that the law provides for such procedural safeguards to balance the wide powers granted to the executive under the NSA. The State Government cannot expect this Court to uphold its powers of subjective satisfaction to detain a person, while violating the procedural guarantees of the detenu that are fundamental to the laws of preventive detention enshrined in the Constitution."

15. From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it

is manifest that delaying of decision on the representation of

the detenue amounts to an infringement of a valuable right

which is available to a detenue in terms of provisions

2026:JKLHC-JMU:189

contained in Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public

Safety Act, which makes it obligatory on the detaining

authority to communicate to the detenue the grounds on

which the order of detention has been made within a

maximum period of ten days from the date of detention and to

afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation

against the order of detention. The purpose of furnishing the