The detaining authority must demonstrate awareness of all relevant facts before issuing a preventive detention order; failure to do so constitutes non-application of mind, rendering the order invalid.

JUDGMENT

01. The petitioner, through his son, has challenged the Order No. PSA 33 of 2023, dated 28.11.2023, whereby the District Magistrate, Jammu, has placed him under detention with a view to prevent him from acting IN any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

02. The impugned detention order has been assailed by the detenue on the ground that the same suffers from total non-application of mind, as the grounds of detention are verbatim of the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu. The petitioner argues that the detention order cites his involvement in several FIRs, all registered with Police Station Nagrota, Jammu, including: FIR No. 64/2024 under Sections 392/354 RPC; FIR No. 161/2010 under Sections 341/323/34 RPC; FIR No. 223/2011 under Sections 341/332/34 RPC; FIR No. 192/2013 under Sections 341/323 RPC; FIR No. 252/2013 under Sections 341/323/34 RPC; FIR No. 276/2015 under Sections 452/341/323/147/504/506/382 RPC; and FIR No. 194/2023 under Sections 382/354/323/34 RPC.

03. It is further submitted by the detenue that the Detaining Authority has not shown any awareness to the fact that in FIR No. 161/2010 registered under Sections 341/323/34 RPC and FIR No. 252/2013 registered under Sections 341/323/34 RPC, the Challan presented in these FIRs have been dismissed in view of the compromise arrived between the detenue and the complainant. The detenue was admitted to bail in FIR No. 64/2024, FIR No. 223/2011, FIR No. 192/2013, FIR No. 276/2015 and FIR No. 194/2023. This fact has not been reflected in the order of detention, which shows that there is total non-application of mind and the Detaining Authority was not aware of the facts before passing the order of detention.

04. The detenue further submits that all material relied upon by the Detaining Authority, including copies of FIRs, site plans, recovery memos, and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, has not been supplied to him. As a result, the detenue was prevented from making an effective representation to the Detaining Authority as well as to the Government. The order of detention is, thus, illegal and ought to be quashed. 05. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit as well as produced the relevant record.

06. The respondents submit that the petitioner is a hardcore criminal, a desperate character, and a history-sheeter who habitually engages in acts of violence, including molestation, burglary, land-grabbing, and other criminal activities. It is further stated that, by virtue of his continuous involvement in criminal activities, the detenue has instilled a reign of terror among the peace-loving people of the area, and his actions are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The respondents also contend that all the statutory constitutional safeguards have been adhered to by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention. The impugned order of detention is, therefore, legal and valid. The respondents’ counsel has submitted that the grounds raised in this petition are misconceived and devoid of merit.

07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

08. The first ground argued by the learned counsel for the detenue is that the Detaining Authority, while passing the order of detention, failed to take into account the fact that the detenue was granted bail in FIR No. 64/2024, FIR No. 223/2011, FIR No. 192/2013, FIR No. 276/2015 and FIR No. 194/2023. The order of detention has been passed on the basis of aforesaid FIRs, without mentioning this important fact in grounds of detention which exhibits total non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. This also reflects that detaining authority has not meticulously examined the material record available before him while passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable in law.

09. The Detaining Authority has also relied on two FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 161/2010 under Sections 341/323/3