Detention orders must consider all relevant facts, including bail status; failure to do so renders the order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

01. The petitioner has challenged the detention order No. PSA 28 of 2023 dated 15.11.2023, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, placing him under detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner through his wife-Mst. Nazneena Akhtar.

02. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of detention has been passed without any application of mind, as the allegations made in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the petitioner, as the same have been made in order to justify the illegal detention of the petitioner. The petitioner was earlier detained in pursuance of detention order No. 7/PSA of 2016, dated 24.05.2016 based on a dossier submitted by respondent No. 3. All five complaints mentioned in the detention order dated 15.11.2023 were also part of the earlier detention order, however, the respondents relied on the same complaints while issuing the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2023. The grounds of detention are verbatim of the dossier submitted by SSP, Jammu, and the detention order has been passed without any subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority has also not considered the fact that the detention is on the basis of FIRs relied upon by them in which charge-sheet has been presented and the petitioner has been granted bail. This fact has neither been noticed nor any compelling reasons were recorded while passing the order of detention. All the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has not been supplied to the petitioner, infringing upon his right to make a representation. The petitioner was not informed about his right to make a representation either to the Detaining Authority or the Government, which has resulted in infraction of his valuable rights. There is no live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the detention order, therefore, the detention is unsustainable.

03. The respondents have contested the petition by filing counter affidavit and record has also been produced by them.

04. The respondents submit that there are four FIRs registered against the petitioner, i.e., (i) FIR No. 88/2015 u/s 447-A/336 registered at Police Station, Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu; (ii) FIR No. 103/2015 u/s 447-A, registered at Police Station, Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu; (iii) FIR No. 63/2019 u/s 451/323/506/34 RPC, registered at Police Station, Peermitha, Jammu and; (iv) FIR No. 62/2023 u/s 452/506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Peermitha, Jammu. This apart, five complaints have also been registered against the petitioner, i.e., (i) Complaint u/s 107/151 CrPC at Police Station, Kulgam; (ii) Complaint u/s 186 RPC at Police Station, Peermitha; (iii) Complaint u/s 107/117(3) CrPC at Police Station, Peermitha; (iv) Complaint u/s 107/117(3) CrPC at Police Station, Peermitha and; (v) DDR No. 25 dated 17.11.2011 at Police Station, Peermitha. It is submitted that these FIRs and complaints registered against the petitioner were stated in the dossier submitted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu and after considering all the material on record, the Detaining Authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction and passed the order of detention.

05. It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner poses a threat to public order, peace, and stability due to his involvement in numerous criminal activities. It was improbable that he will refrain from such activities, which adversely affect the maintenance of public order, therefore, his detention was deemed necessary under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. All the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the Detaining Authority. The impugned order issued is legal and valid and that the grounds urged by the petitioner in this petition are misconceived and untenable being without any merit.

06. Heard learned counsel