Preventive detention orders must demonstrate awareness of the detenue's custody status and cannot conflate grounds of public order and security of the State; failure to do so invalidates the order.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant petition, the detenue herein, through his sister namely Sunita Kumari, has challenged Order No. PSA 25 of 2024 dated 01.06.2024 issued by respondent No. 2, by virtue of which the detenue has been detained under preventive detention in terms of the provisions of Section 8(1) (a) of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. It is stated that FIR No. 59/2013 under Section 363/342 RPC came to registered at Police Station Bishnah on a written report lodged by one Kala Ram S/o Dheru Ram R/o W.No.13, Bishnah regarding missing of his daughter. In the complaint it was alleged that one Rinku Kumar S/o Bhushan Lal R/o Langotian, Miran Sahib had persuaded complainant‟s daughter for marriage and kidnapped her on the pretext of marriage and took her to some unknown place. On completion of investigation, Challan was produced before the Court of law against the petitioner; FIR No. 44/2024 came to be registered at Police Station Miran Sahib, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 307/336/34 IPC and 3/25/27 of Arms Act on the basis of information received through reliable sources that notorious criminal namely, Karnjit Singh @ Gigga alongwith Ishmit Singh @ Krish in league with others had opened indiscriminate firing outside Khajuria Food Mall,, Miran Sahib in order to kill owner of the Mall in lieu of extortion (ferroti). During investigation, involvement of the petitioner was found and accordingly, he was arrested and the case is still under investigation; FIR No.74/2024 under Section 452/307/34 IPC and 3/25/27 of Arms Act was registered at Police Station, R.S.Pura on a written report by one Yash Paul that two persons namely Gokal, Goga alongwith one unknown came on a motorcycle after stopping their motorcycle outside his house Goga fired two rounds out of which one hit the box of pigeon. On hearing the sound, complainant‟s wife reached near main gate, they caught hold her from neck and dragged her. On hue and cry by the complainant and his wife, accused fled away from the spot. During investigation, involvement of the petitioner was found and the FIR is still under investigation. In the grounds of detention it is stated, that the petitioner is a dreaded/notorious criminal and is addicted to crime. His activities are grave threat to the security of the State. The Detaining Authority after drawing subjective satisfaction came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a threat to the society and public order and order his detention for the purpose of preventing and combating his activities prejudicial to the security of the State, maintenance of public safety and afford protection to the society.

3. It is stated that the detention of the detenue under preventive detention is illegal, arbitrary and without any lawful jurisdiction as the substantive law of the land could have sufficiently taken care of the alleged activities of the detenue. The detenue, as such, has challenged the impugned order inter alias on the grounds:-

a) That the impugned order of detention has been issued in an unreasonable, arbitrary and malafide manner.

b) That the order impugned has been issued in a casual and mechanical manner without proper application of mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

c) That the grounds of impugned detention order is verbatim copy of the dossier and no other material has been considered by the detaining authority which speaks volumes about the non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which does not justify the preventive detention and the detention order requires quashment.

d) The order impugned is bad in law, because before directing preventive detention of the petitioner, the Detaining Authority did not call for the present status of the FIRs, which have been formed basis for detaining the petition under preventive custody.

e) A bare perusal of the order impugned and grounds of detention transpires unawareness of the Detaining Authority as to whether petitio