JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.-Impugned in this petition is Order No.04 of 2021 dated 05.05.2021 issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, respondent No.2 herein, whereby Yudhvir Singh, petitioner herein (for brevity, detenu), has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, peace and tranquility in the society.

2. The case as set up by the petitioner-detenu is that respondent No.2 while slapping preventive detention of detenu has not adhered to the constitutional safeguards available to him under the Constitution of India as well as the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. It is contended that the petitioner has been implicated in false and frivolous FIRs and that the detaining authority has issued the detention order without application of mind by not mentioning that he was already in custody in FIR No.91/2021 at the time of passing of the impugned detention order, which fact has not been disclosed in the grounds of detention. Further, it is contended that the detenu has already made a representation against his detention; however, the respondents have not intimated him about the fate of his representation. It is also averred that the allegation with regard to the association of petitioner, as alleged in the grounds of detention, as well as the status of FIRs, which have been made basis for issuing the detention order, have not been disclosed. Even the material documents relied upon by the respondents, upon which the detention order has been issued, have not been supplied to the petitioner-detenu. To cement his arguments, learned counsel for detenu has placed reliance on a case, bearing WP(Crl) No.26/2021, titled as, Pritam Singh vs UT of J&K, decided on 09.11.2021.

3. Respondents in their counter affidavit resisted the contentions of petitioner-detenu averring therein that the aim of preventive detention is to stop the illegal activities of an individual which otherwise cannot be stopped when such an individual creates havoc in the society which leads to public disorder, peace, stability and in certain cases also raises alarm bells regarding the nation’s unity and integrity. It is averred that the petitioner-detenu falls under the category of being a threat to the public order, peace and stability in the society, thus, falls under the category of Section 8 of the Public Safety Act. In support of their contentions, respondents have also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court, titled as, Union of India vs Simple Happy Dhakad as well as a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Miyan Abdul Qayoom vs Union Territory of J&K.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the record.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the SHO Police Station R.S. Pura, Jammu moved an application before the learned Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Jammu for execution of detention warrants of petitioner-detenu, as he was already lodged in District Jail, Ambphalla, Jammu on judicial remand in case FIR No.91/2021 under Sections 307/120-B IPC read with Section 3/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The learned Magistrate while accepting the application directed the Superintendent, District Jail Ambphalla to hand over the custody of accused-detenu to SHO R.S. Pura after completing the formalities. The record so produced reveals that the petitioner-detenu under his signatures received a total of 316 leaves including the copy of detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice of detention, copy of dossier and other related documents through executing officer PSI Amit Singh, which were read over and explained to the detenu in dogri language which he fully understood. The petitioner-detenu was also informed that he can make a representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention order, if he so desires. Therefore, the contention of