Preventive detention orders must demonstrate compelling reasons when a person is already in judicial custody; mere replication of police dossiers lacks legal validity.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order of detention bearing No. 05/PSA of 2022, dated 03.10.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been detained under section 8(1)(a) of Jammu and Kashmir PUBLIC SAFETY ACT , 1978 (for short 'the Act').

2. The petitioner has assailed the order of detention on the following grounds:-

(i) That the order of detention has been passed, when the petitioner was already in judicial custody in FIR No. 148/2022, dated 03.09.2022 registered with Police Station, Bishnah and no compelling reasons have been mentioned in the Police dossier, detention order and grounds of detention by the Detaining Authority for detaining the petitioner when he was already in judicial custody.

(ii) That the order of detention is the verbatim reproduction of the Police dossier which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while issuing the order of detention.

(iii) That the Detaining Authority has not even taken note of the present status of the false and frivolous FIRs registered against the petitioner which clearly shows that the order of detention has been passed in a mechanical manner.

3. Respondent No. 2 has filed the response stating therein that the order of detention has been passed after duly considering the dossier, copies of the FIRs and other supporting documents received from respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 had denied that the order of detention is the replica of the dossier submitted by respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba. It is further stated that the petitioner has created an atmosphere of lawlessness in District Samba as eight FIRs have been registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code in a short span of time from the year 2000-2022. Taking in to consideration the illegal activities of the petitioner, the order of detention was passed. Moreover, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir vide order dated 01.11.2022 has also confirmed the order of detention and further the order of detention has been extended from time to time. Respondent No. 2 has further pleaded that since the actions taken against the petitioner under the ordinary law from time to time have not yielded any result and his persistent involvement in the antisocial activities are posing threat to the peace and security of the State as such, the Detaining Authority issued the order of detention on the basis of the record submitted by respondent No. 3. Further as per execution report, the grounds of detention have been provided to the petitioner against proper receipt and same were explained to the petitioner in Hindi, Urdu and Dogri Languages. The petitioner has put his signatures on the receipt of grounds of detention in acknowledgement of the receipt of the same.

4. Mr. Deepak Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Detaining Authority has not shown any compelling reasons in the order of detention warranting the issuance of order of detention when the petitioner was already under judicial remand. He further submitted that the grounds of detention are verbatim reproduction of the dossier submitted by respondent No. 3 which clearly shows the non-application of mind on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

5. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG representing respondents vehemently argued that eight FIRs have been registered against the petitioner which clearly shows that the ordinary law has failed to deter the petitioner from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, in order to prevent the petitioner fro